WILLIAM HAGUE ON THE CHALLENGES TO BRITAIN FIRST MARY

STEVEN BERKOFF: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

JON CRAIG ASSESSES THE CONFERENCE SEASON

WILLIAM HAGUE ON THE CHALLENGES TO BRITAIN

MARY CREAGH DEFENDS THE HUNTING ACT

ED DAVEY ON THE GREEN DEAL

JIM MURPHY ASSESSES BRITISH MILTARY CAPABILITIES

LIAM FOX ON REPAIRING THE UK ECONOMY

VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 £3.99 www.politicsfirst.org.uk

LIFTING THE CLOUDOF SOCIAL INJUSTICEIAIN DUNCAN SMITH, NICK HURD, HELEN NEWLOVE, VICTOR ADEBOWALE, HERMAN STEWART & CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP

POLITICSF I R S T

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012

INSIDE:DAVID CAMERON, NICK CLEGG & ED MILIBAND

September/October 2012 Politics First 3 www.politicsfirst.org.uk

CO

NT

EN

TS

Editorial Board:Esther McVey Lionel Zetter Darryl Howe

Paul Routledge John BrethertonHarold Atcherley

Production Consultant: Gemma PritchardFeatures Assistant:

Alex DonaldCover image:

Christopher PullingerFinance Director:

Senel Mehmet

Editorial, Advertising and Subscriptions

Tel: 0797 237 4529

Published by: First Publishing Limited

Kemp House 152 City Road London

EC1V 2NX

Email: [email protected] www.politicsfirst.org.uk

© First Publishing Limited

ISSN 2046-4258Company number: 7965752

Working together with:

The views expressed in Politics First are not necessarily those of First Publishing Limited and its directors.

6 EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:STEVEN BERKOFF Marcus Papadopoulos talks to Hollywood actor Steven Berkoff about his efforts to stop the sale of foie gras in retail outlets and restaurants in the UK 10 LEADERS:David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband set out their vision for Britain

14 COLUMNS: Jon Craig and Paul Routledge on what the conference season might have in store for the party leaders 16 SPOTLIGHT: LIFTING THE CLOUD OF SOCIAL INJUSTICEIain Duncan Smith, Nick Hurd, Helen Newlove, Victor Adebow-ale, Herman Stewart and Child Poverty Action Group

22 CORRIDORS: William Hague and Douglas Alexander discuss the challenges to British foreign policy

Liam Fox argues that the British economy can only be repaired at home

Ed Davey makes the case for the Green Deal

58 SPECIAL SECTION: COMMONWEALTHSir Malcolm Rifkind, Ruth Lea and Ozwald Boateng

74 DIARY PAGE:Nigel Nelson

POLITICSF I R S T

Publisher & Editor:Marcus Papadopoulos

Editorial Advisor:Keith Richmond Printed in the UK by

The Magazine Printing Companyusing only paper from FSC/PEFC suppliers

www.magprint.co.uk

Copyright © Steve Bell 2012 - Belltoons.co.uk

GET ORFF OURBADGERS DAVE

B R I A N D A V I E S - F O U N D E R

YOU CAN HELP NOWSend donations to PAL at:Imperial House, 2a Heigham Rd East Ham, London E6 2JG

As violence associated with some groups escalated in the 90’s, PAL chose political intervention as the vehicle to help animals and it works.

Join the �ght.Go to www.badgeringdave.org to �nd out how.


POLITICSF I R S T

Welcome to the autumn party conference edition of Politics First! An extended edition focusing on key issues facing Britain at home and abroad, and with thought-provoking articles on areas currently not being given sufficient attention by the British national press.

Given the UK economy’s global standing – seventh largest in the world and third largest in Europe – the levels of inequality in many communities across Britain are shockingly high. From child poverty to unemployment to drug and alcohol abuse to domestic abuse, Britain has a cancer, and that cancer is social injustice. Indeed, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, 3.6 million children in the UK reside in poverty – this is more than one in four British children.

So how can the cloud of social injustice, which blights the lives of so many people in Britain today, be lifted? The government recently published its “Social Justice Strategy” which aims to understand social injustice more and thereby get to the

roots of the problem, to tackle it more effectively. To add to that debate, Politics First invited Iain Duncan Smith, Nick Hurd, Helen Newlove, Victor Adebowale, Herman Stewart and Child Poverty Action Group to discuss how to improve the life chances of the disadvantaged in the UK.

Two years into their jobs – and three years away from the general election – David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband explain how they intend to take Britain forward and release it from the economic woes that are shackling its future.

Steven Berkoff, Hollywood actor and playwright and director, talks exclusively about the horror behind the ‘delicacy’ foie gras and his efforts to get it removed from the shelves and menus of all retailers and restaurants in the UK.

With the world becoming a rapidly changing place, William Hague discusses the challenges to British foreign policy while Jim Murphy assesses the combat-readiness of the British armed forces. Paul Burstow details how the government is prioritising mental health care while Malcolm Rifkind looks at the potential of the Commonwealth. And Caroline Flint assesses whether the Green Deal is a good deal or not.

To Politics First’s usual audience, and delegates attending Brighton, Manchester and Birmingham, I hope you enjoy both your time at conference and this edition.

Dr Marcus Papadopoulos, Publisher/Editor

WE

LC

OM

ESUBSCRIPTIONS:

Be first to get Politics First with guaranteed delivery on the day of publication. Why not treat a friend with a gift subscription to keep them up-to-date with key issues of the day.

Yes, I would like to subscribe to Politics First for only £20 per annum Your details Title Forename Surname Address Postcode Phone Mobile Email Cheques should be made payable to First Publishing Ltd and sent to: Politics First, First Publishing Limited, Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX

MARTIN McGUINNESS: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

JON CRAIG ASSESSES THE SNP’S LEADER

KEITH VAZ LOOKS AT THE HOME OFFICE

CRISPIN BLUNT ON THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM

BARONESS HARRIS DISCUSSES POLICE CHALLENGES

DAVID WILLETTS ON CHANGES TO HIGHER EDUCATION

LORD BEECHAM WARNS AGAINST CUTS TO LEGAL AID

VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 6 £3.99 www.politicsfirst.org.uk

APRIL 2012

BUDGETING FOR THE ECONOMY

RACHEL REEVES,LEN McCLUSKEY,BRITISH BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION,FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSESAND ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE

A grave or growthcase?

POLITICSF I R S T

PETER RIDDELL: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

BARONESS NEWLOVE ON HOW TO TACKLE BINGE DRINKING

LUCIANA BERGER EXAMINES THE GREEN DEAL

DON FOSTER DISCUSSES TAX EVASION

PRESIDENT CHRISTOFIAS ON THE CYPRUS EU PRESIDENCY

SIR PAUL NURSE EXPLORES THE MARVEL OF SCIENCE

MARK JONES LOOKS AT THE BADGER CULL

VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 7 £3.99 www.politicsfi rst.org.uk

VALUE FOR MONEYHow can Whitehall deliver efficiently to the taxpayer?FRANCIS MAUDE, JON TRICKETT, MARGARET HODGE, MARK SERWOTKA AND LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

POLITICSF I R S T

JUNE 2012

LEGAL AID REFORM: KENNETH CLARKE, SADIQ KHAN, LORD CARLILE, DES HUDSON AND MICHAEL MANSFIELD QC

Copyright © Steve Bell 2012 - Belltoons.co.uk

GET ORFF OURBADGERS DAVE

B R I A N D A V I E S - F O U N D E R

YOU CAN HELP NOWSend donations to PAL at:Imperial House, 2a Heigham Rd East Ham, London E6 2JG

As violence associated with some groups escalated in the 90’s, PAL chose political intervention as the vehicle to help animals and it works.

Join the �ght.Go to www.badgeringdave.org to �nd out how.

www.politicsfirst.org.uk6 Politics First September/October 2012

Steven Berkoff, Hollywood actor and playwright and director, talks to Marcus Papadopoulos about the cruelty behind the ‘delicacy’ of foie gras and why the UK should act quickly to ban the sale and import of this “torture in a tin”

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:

STEVEN BERKOFFThe horror behind foie gras

Britain has historically set a shining example to the rest of the world in pushing for animals to be re-garded as sentient beings and not

merely as commodities.

In 1822, Britain was the first country in the world to introduce an animal welfare law and since then numerous other pieces of legislation have been passed which have enhanced the overall protection of animals in the country, in particular the Hunting Act 2004 and the Animal Welfare Act 2007. From companion animals to wild animals to farmed animals to performing animals, Britain stands as a beacon of hope for the animal kingdom and is one of its most fervent protectors, putting it in line with the famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its ani-mals are treated.” It is surprising, therefore,

that on the shelves and menus of a minority of retailers and restaurants in Britain, such as Fortnum & Mason and Harrods, is an item of food whose production constitutes one of the most shocking forms of animal cruelty in the world today: foie gras.

Foie gras is originally a French pate which is made from the enlarged livers of ducks and geese through force-feeding. This ‘delicacy’ is overwhelmingly produced in France. The birds, which are often kept in semi-darkness in crammed cages or small pens without adequate water, are force-fed several times a day for up to 21 days consecutively by a funnel straight into their oesophagus. The funnel is pushed five inches down the birds’ throats with up to four pounds of grain and fat being pumped into their stomachs. As a result of the force-feeding, the livers of the birds grow by up to ten times their normal size. The birds are

then killed and their livers cut out and sold as foie gras.

The pain that ducks and geese experience on foie gras farms is unspeakable. Investiga-tions carried out by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals found terrified birds barely able to move, had tumour-like lumps in their throats with the rest of their bodies covered in maggots and had severe damage to their throat muscles. Undercover footage obtained by PETA is extremely distress-ing and shocking even to seasoned animal welfare investigators.

Force-feeding of animals is banned in 15 countries, including Britain, Germany, Italy and Israel. However, importing foie gras and selling it is still legal in those countries (the state of California, however, this year set a historic precedent by banning the sale of foie gras in retail shops and restaurants).


In Britain, a country whose popula-tion is known for its compassion towards animals, PETA is spearheading a campaign for foie gras to be banned from shops and restaurants. And leading that campaign is the renowned and acclaimed English actor, playwright and director, Steven Berkoff.

Steven, famous for his roles in the Hollywood films Octopussy, Beverley Hills Cop, Rambo: First Blood Part II and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and for his long-standing involvement in theatre such as his acclaimed solo play Shakespeare’s Villains and his current play 6 Actors in Search of a Director, which he has written and directed, has long campaigned to eradicate all forms of cruelty to animals.

In this exclusive interview, Steven states why he is opposed to foie gras, how he is raising awareness of this issue, his attitude to people who consume and sell foie gras and the other animal issues which he cam-paigns on behalf of.

Q Why are you opposed to foie gras?

A I am opposed to any form of animal cruelty perpetuated for gourmandising. In fact, I am opposed to animal cruelty even to satisfy our needs but this is inevitable, unfortunately, given battery farming and the intensive use of all sorts of appalling practices like hormone fattening of calves and cows.

Those are just some of the terrible inflic-tions human beings have perpetrated on the animal kingdom on the slim justifica-tion to survive. However, gourmandising is an atrocious form of cruelty to satisfy a jaded palate. So that is why I am against foie gras.

Q What have you done to help raise awareness about the issue?

A I make comments which are sometimes printed in the press and take part in PETA campaigns including against Fortnum & Mason, where we once demonstrated to the press outside the London shop, the ghastly feeding tubes used to enlarge the livers of ducks and geese.

Furthermore, I have written articles condemning experiments on animals for the furtherance and development of better medicines for the human race. I consider it appalling to inflict pain and suffering on

animals just so that humans can have more time on this planet. Quite simply, I am outraged by the using and abusing of the animal kingdom.

Q How did you first become involved in PETA’s campaign to highlight the cruelty involved in the production of foie gras?

A It all began when PETA got in contact with me as a result of a letter which I had written to The Times about some form of animal cruelty. They asked me if I would help with their campaigns and I was only too delighted to do so. I have been in-

volved with PETA for about five years now.

Q What has been the response from family, friends and colleagues to your efforts?

A The response from people who are aware of the cruelty behind foie gras, or what I call “torture in a tin”, has been 100 per cent supportive. And I am not surprised by that because 99 per cent of the human race has empathy for any living being which is abused or inflicted with pain under any circumstances. However, there is that one per cent of people who are, unfortunately, lacking in that gene of empathy.

Q Why are you boycotting Fortnum & Mason specifically?

A I am not boycotting Fortnum & Mason per se. I think Fortnum & Mason is an amazing establishment which I have been using for over half a century and a great credit to London café society but they would be far more respected if they would delete from their stock this most unpalat-able item.

Q What words do you have for people who consume foie gras, and also the retailers and restaurants who still cur-

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: STEVEN BERKOFF

“ People who do not

object to animal cruelty do not function in the

totality of human consciousness

“


rently sell it?

A The people who consume foie gras are usually highly intelligent but seem to lack a gene of compassion. They are mostly uninformed and are so obsessed with satisfying their peculiar needs and tastes that they do not question how these tastes and flavours are produced. So they are wilfully ignorant about the suffering that is caused to satisfy their palates; regrettably, what we suffer from in this world is a total unawareness of what goes into the creation of our everyday products and we must be made aware of it.

The question, therefore, is how do we inform these people? People are very susceptible to information and this is what one has to do. Unfortunately, the older people get the more difficult it is to convince them.

Regarding retailers and restaurants who sell foie gras, they think they are doing the best for customers who would, incidental-ly, commit any pain, any suffering to enjoy one more mouthful of a gourmandising type of delicacy. Unfortunately, our French cousins, generally speaking, seem to be one of the worst offenders. Regrettably many people in France seem to perceive animals as only there to serve us. But we in Britain should be more aware of how shocking it is that Fortnum & Mason, for example, sell a product which is morally dubious.

The fact that Fortnum & Mason align themselves with this unspeakable cruelty is part of the general commercialisation of everything in our society and I am sure that with decent and honest persua-sion they would be induced to drop this product.

Fortnum & Mason are in what we call the “crime zone” in which people will sacrifice animals for a peculiar hunger. People like that have no empathy. And China is, of course, another major of-fender. Thirty-nine million sharks are needlessly slaughtered every year for some peculiar taste of fin soup in China. China is also the leading market for the peculiar need for ivory. It is absolutely disgusting. So it is not just Fortnum & Mason we are up against; we need to be campaigning worldwide.

We, in the West, are gradually leaving

that filthy “crime zone” but there are still one or two left, and Fortnum & Mason should not be proud of themselves.

Q Prestigious events, like the BAFTAs, and prominent department stores, such as Selfridges and Harvey Nichols, have already removed foie gras from their menus and food halls. Do you believe the days of foie gras are numbered?

A I believe its end is very near. The more you campaign, the more pressure is put on outlets to stop selling it. However, leg-islation should also be passed to ban the import and sale of this “torture in a tin”.

Q Can you detail the other animal issues which you campaign on.

A For the benefits that we have achieved with animal testing, the suffering that has been perpetrated on millions of innocent creatures should be a cause of immense concern.

To me, anyone involved in animal testing belongs to the “crime zone”. It is a sin. To argue that it is done to save human lives is rather irrelevant given that animals are tortured to death for it. The genius if the medical profession is such that they are sure to find other ways to test products which are far more ethical than cutting open the brain of a live monkey.

I find it unpalatable the need of women to wear fur. When you see furs in a shop, such as Harrods, you do not think that an animal was once in this and that it was skinned to death for it. The prime cause of cruelty is the separation of the product from its source. I wish those women who wear furs would take an example from people like Stella McCartney who will never use fur in any of her fashion and because of this is far more inventive and inspiring

Society should revere, protect and admire the living creature, rather than it’s dead coat being worn by grossly overpaid models.

People who do not object to animal cruelty do not function in the totality of hu-man consciousness. Human beings are not dumb and with the proper information and access to images, be it still photography or video of the cruelty inflicted, will I am sure be persuaded to change their attitudes.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: STEVEN BERKOFF

Steven Berkoff

Born on 3 August 1937, Stepney,

London, England;

Hollywood actor, playwright and

director;

Films include Octopussy, Beverley Hills Cop, Rambo: First Blood Part II and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo;

Theatre work includes Sink the Belgrano!, Shakespeare’s Villains and 6

Actors in Search of a Director.

Society should revere, protect and admire the living creature

“

“


The coalition I lead was born in a climate of urgency and determination; and it continues in that spirit. We are engaged in

nothing less than an all-out fight to turn our country around.

Why do I call it an all-out fight? Because the pressure on Britain today comes from two directions. There are the home-grown problems: the eye-watering debt; the deep imbalances in our economy; the numbers out of work. And there is the global context: the economic tumult and uncertainty; the Eurozone in crisis; the great shifts in wealth and influence from West to East. This is a world where the value of China’s exports has increased one hundred-fold over the past three decades; where the global middle class is expanding at extraordinary speed; where there are countless opportunities for those countries agile and dynamic enough to grab them.

Take both the domestic and international pictures together and you see that we are at a pivotal moment in our history. We can flinch from the challenges ahead, let our array of weaknesses fester and resign ourselves to decline. Or we can vow to get a grip on our problems – however difficult that may be in the short-term – and do whatever it takes to equip our country for long-term success. Look at everything this coalition is doing and you’ll see we’ve chosen the right path. We are confronting our national problems head-on, regardless of the short-term fall-out or political headaches that may cause.

Against fierce opposition we’ve made significant cuts to public spending – and we’re making progress. When we came to office the deficit stood at over 11 per

cent of GDP; in just two years we have cut it by one quarter. Put simply, we are safeguarding Britain against the economic storms on our door-step. That’s why, however tough deficit reduction is in the short-term, we are sticking to the course.

We’re showing the same resolve to turn our economy around. Britain’s prosperity was balanced on a few teetering, precarious pillars: unsustainable public spending, a housing boom, a finance boom, an immigration boom. We see where we need to go from here – an economy where we’re innovating, making new products and exporting them to the world; one built on manufacturing, advanced technology, genuine, high-level skills.

Clearly, a turnaround like this can’t be achieved in a matter of months. It takes pain-staking, persistent work – and the guts to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Cutting regulation is tough when you have every interest group lined up to predict the damage you’re going to do.

Reforming the planning system is hard when people say you’re concreting over the countryside. Making our pensions system more affordable is guaranteed to meet a wave of attacks from the unions. My point is that all these decisions win you enemies – and that’s why they’ve

been dodged for so long. But we are refusing to take the easy way out now if it means consigning Britain to decline later.

There’s an equally tough fight to bring opportunity to everyone in our society. It is a scandal that millions have been denied the chance to get on in life, betrayed by failing schools and a benefits system that left them trapped in state dependency for years on end. Spraying money at these problems isn’t the answer. We need bold, long-term reform and that’s what we’re undertaking, from a free schools revolution that is allowing parents, teachers and charities to set up their own schools, to the new Universal Credit that’s going to ensure it makes financial sense for people to choose work over welfare.

So this is the thread running through this coalition: time after time we have chosen to do what is right for the long-term, whether that’s raising the pension age so we can afford a proper state pension, reforming state pensions to cut their long-term cost right down, or eradicating the huge hole in the defence budget so we can keep our armed forces properly sustained and our nation secure.

With all these reforms and changes, we can’t expect an overnight transformation of our country. We’re dealing with some deeply entrenched problems in a time of unparalleled economic uncertainty.

But as we have started in this Coalition, so we will go on: taking tough decisions where we need to; challenging vested interests wherever necessary; believing that Britain can have a confident and competitive future; and in everything we do – putting the national interest first.

Taking tough decisions now to safeguard Britain’s future Prime MinisterDavid Cameron

PARTY LEADERS:

We are at a pivotal moment in

our history

““

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

GK_A5_editorial_Marcus_print.pdf 1 24/08/2012 10:43

We hope that the next election will demonstrate real people power, with voters making deci-sions based on the actions of those currently elected. The BFAWU will remind its members of the decisions that this government has made since 2010. We will ensure that voters are aware that they had intended to place a burden on ordinary peoples’ eating habits to fund tax cuts for millionaires. We will ask our members in the baking industry, living in the constituencies of MPs that supported the introduction of the ‘Pasty Tax’ to remind the public of the damaging reper-cussions created by ill thought out policies. The government eventually performed a U-turn, but if either of the current governing parties were to be elected, could they be trusted NOT to bring the policy back? The BFAWU believes that the constant attack on working people should stop. Workers should be valued with their rights enshrined in law. We will ask those making decisions to take responsi-bility. Should an MP vote for cuts in health and safety that lead to workplace deaths, we believe it is only right and fair for that MP to face charges of complicity. Governments talk about people taking responsibility and we agree. We believe in accountability for ill thought out policies with criminal charges where they are voted through based on ideology and donations, rather than having considered the consequences involved to those they directly affect.The current make up of the House of Commons is out of touch with the electorate. We need to ensure that the voices of real people are heard above lobbyists and the select few with vested interests. This is why the BFAWU is actively encouraging members to get involved politically and ensure that they only support MPs that represent and value ordinary people.


PARTY LEADERS:

I’m sure in years to come we’ll look back at the summer of 2012 with very fond memories, indeed. It started with a bang: an extra long bank holiday in

June to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. That was quickly followed by weeks of breathtaking sporting action during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The golden performance of our athletes and the contribution of thousands of volunteers made for the best Olympics in living memory.

As we move into the Autumn, the question is: how do we retain that sense of optimism? Recent months have been a welcome reminder that Britain is an open nation, filled with great talent and ability. With the country continuing to face serious challenges - not least in our economy - we must draw on those characteristics to propel ourselves onto more prosperous times.

That mission – rescuing, repairing, and reforming our economy - is what brought the Coalition together. It’s why the Liberal Democrats entered Government with the Conservatives and it remains our priority. Before the election, there were varying degrees of hysteria surrounding the prospect of a hung Parliament. Yet we have confounded the naysayers, proving that Coalitions can provide stable and decisive government and we’ve taken the difficult but necessary decisions to get the public finances in order.

Of course, deficit reduction is only a means to an end - and the end we all seek is growth. The situation around us has deteriorated in light of continuing turmoil in the Eurozone. But that is only steeling our resolve - driving a renewed focus on measures to help jobs throughout the

Autumn.

And just as the Liberal Democrats are galvanised around economic reform, we are also determined to deliver social renewal. We don’t just want Britain to emerge from our troubles with a stronger economy. Our vision is for a fairer, more open society, where people who work hard can get ahead.

Not least through the tax system. The

slogan for our Conference in Brighton this year is “fairer tax in tough times.” The Liberal Democrats set out - on the front page of our manifesto - our commitment to cutting taxes for ordinary people. We have done so in every Budget while we’ve been in Government. By April next year, we will have lifted two million of the lowest paid out of paying Income Tax altogether and we will have put £550 back in the pocket of over twenty million basic rate tax payers. And we’re not done yet – by the time we are finished, no one will pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn. In the longer term, it is our party policy that no one should pay tax until they are earning above the minimum wage.

Alongside tax, there are three other big areas the party will be focusing on during our Conference.The first, of course, is jobs. It’s our priority because it’s the country’s priority. Our £1 billion

Youth Contract is giving every jobless youngster the chance to earn or learn; our £2.4 billion Regional Growth Fund is helping businesses in areas previously over-dependent on the public sector; and we have created a record number of apprenticeships, too.

The second is the environment - because greening our economy and conserving precious resources is the route to lasting prosperity. Later this year, the Green Deal will start to begin saving people money on their energy bills, cutting carbon emissions, and it will create thousands of green jobs. Our Green Investment Bank - a global first - will also help Britain become a world leader in green technology and unlock £18 billion of investment.

The third is education. That’s why, even with money as tight as it is, we have committed an extra £2.5bn for our Pupil Premium (also on the front page of our manifesto) to stop struggling children from falling behind and help the whole class move ahead. And we’re extending free child care for disadvantaged two-year-olds - providing support in the early years when children need it most.

If you were to choose the circumstances in which to come into Government for the first time in 70 years, you would not choose these. Britain faces an unparalleled set of challenges. But, halfway in, and the Liberal Democrats have proven ourselves to be a competent and capable party of government. We are proud of our record, and during our Conference we will be holding our heads high. And, even more importantly, we’ll be looking to the future, too.

Heads held high looking onwards

Deputy Prime MinisterNick Clegg

By the time we are finished, no one

will pay tax on the first £10,000

they earn

““


I am hugely proud of what Labour did in office. But having been in office for 13 years, the British public lost faith in who we stood up for. They thought that we

had lost touch.

I am determined that we drive forward with changes in the Labour Party so people understand that we will stand up for all of them and stand up to the powerful vested interests; that we can make the economy work for all working people, not just a few at the top; that we are a party which reaches into communities, not one that just talks to itself; and that we keep the promises we make.

The character of our party means we must always put the national interest above the interest of a small, powerful elite. We must do that even when it is difficult. We were criticised when we said publicly-owned banks should not be handing out big bonuses at a time when millions of families are struggling to get by.

The Tories said that was anti-business. It was not - it was pro-business. It was standing up for the small businesses that cannot get a loan from the banks giving themselves big bonuses. It was the right thing to do.

It is the same with the big electricity companies or the train firms. They will not like being challenged but in these tough times, people need to know politics can be on their side. We must put our values alongside people’s interests.

We must lead the way in standing up for consumers, citizens, small businesses against unaccountable concentrations of private and public power. If we are to reach out to people who have lost faith in

the political system, we must show people who we stand up for and we know we must change the economy.

Knocking on doors in my own constituency ever since I became an MP, I am struck by who is more likely to engage in politics and who is not.

If you have a family, you may well think the health service, schools, local services, will be better if Labour is in power. But if you do not spend time using those services, if you do not have kids, and you are simply struggling to get by in an economy where your wages are low, you are more likely to think, it is the same whoever is in power.

Why is that? It reflects what people feel: government has little influence on the kind of economy we have, that globalisation has left us powerless in the face of means and we are powerless in the face of irresponsibility at the top.

Instead, I believe an active government can create a better economy for working people in Britain, with good jobs, good wages and good training; where we can get support to businesses with bright ideas even when their banks are refusing to lend; sustained by a proper plan for growth and jobs rather than just tax cuts for the super-rich; that does not suck all of our greatest talent away from making things and delivery of services into the financial sector.

The character of our party must be one that says we can change our economy so

that it always reflects the interests and values of the British people. That is why we need more change not less in our party to reach out much further and much deeper into every community in Britain.

We know that there is more work to do to ensure that Labour in every part of the country understands the community it seeks to serve. I saw that in Bradford West where we lost the by-election badly. We have begun a programme to select more candidates from more diverse backgrounds and we are knocking on doors we have not knocked on for years.

I want to make 2015 a change election, and set a target of making voter turnout the highest since 1997 - the last change election in this country.

Finally, if we are going to change things, we must show that we are different from what people expect from politicians. This government came into office with the benefit of the doubt but it has catastrophically forfeited that with broken promises on everything from child benefit to tuition fees. They are not the first politicians to lose trust. We did, too, including over Iraq.

The Conservative-led government’s broken promises hurt people across the country, and they also damage respect for all politics.

We will only make promises we can keep, which means realistic promises shaped by big ideals for a better way of living together so that together we can build a country not ridden by class, wealth and income but a country where the economy works for all working people, not just a few at the top and a country where we show politics can improve people’s lives.

I want to make 2015 a change

election

Laying the ground for real change

Leader of the OppositionEd Miliband

“

“


COLUMNS:

The Tory faithful at the Conservative Party Conference have always loved a glamorous

blonde: Margaret Thatcher, Michael Heseltine and now, of course, Boris Johnson.

But this year, after his re-election as London Mayor, the slump in support for David Cameron and an Olympic Games that were a personal triumph for the Mayor and not the Prime Minister, Boris will be the undisputed darling of the Tory conference as never before.

Many of those Conservative MPs who already saw Boris as the king over the water now believe he could sail down the Thames from City Hall to Westminster when he chooses to to seize the Tory crown from the increasingly unpopular Mr Cameron.

Predictably, midway through a Parliament which the Coalition partners have decreed will be for a fixed term of five years, it’s the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who will be anticipating their party conference with trepidation and the Labour leader who will head for his conference with some optimism.

But many Tory and LibDem MPs will feel many of the problems facing Mr Cameron and Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, are self-inflicted, while Ed Miliband and Labour MPs will scarcely be able to believe their luck this autumn.

In Birmingham this year, the beleaguered Prime Minister faces his toughest party conference as Tory leader since 2007 in Blackpool.

Besides the adulation for Boris, now seen by growing numbers of Tory MPs as a proven winner and – despite his buffoonery – a serious rival to Mr Cameron, the Tory leadership will have to contend with increasingly mutinous MPs and activists on a whole range of issues.

But overriding all those contentious issues is the “ditch the Coalition” campaign which has been rapidly gathering support since the bruising clash between Conservative and LibDem MPs on House of Lords reform this July.

Nick Clegg had hoped to go to his conference in Brighton this year with some better news to report on Lords reform, after Mr Cameron promised “one more try” when he addressed Tory MPs at the 1922 Committee before Parliament broke up for the summer.

I was sceptical about that when he said it, believing his chances of persuading rebel Tory MPs to back down were on a par with Nadine Dorries nominating George Osborne for the Tory leadership.

As a result, Mr Clegg will be confronted by his own “ditch the Coalition” brigade in Brighton. And even Danny Alexander, a Coalition loyalist, is – we’re told – poised to attack Tory MPs on Lords reform at the LibDems’ conference.

No such worries for Ed Miliband, who heads for Manchester with his standing among his MPs and in his party stronger than at any time since he defeated his brother for Labour’s crown two years ago.

Yes, supporters of David Miliband still carp. But the Labour leader, after a rocky start, is now much more sure-footed and is even beginning to acquire that crucial ingredient for political success: luck.

Louise Mensch’s shock resignation from the Commons has handed Mr Miliband and Labour the mouth-watering prospect of a crushing by-election win over the Tories in the autumn in the heart of middle England.

A by-election win that will boost Mr Miliband personally and increase the pressure on Mr Cameron’s leadership of the Conservative Party.

So Labour will use their conference as a springboard for that by-election and police commissioner elections this November, as well as turning up the heat on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on Britain’s faltering economy and the continuing threat of recession. Expect to hear a lot from Ed Balls about “Plan B”.

A few weeks back, some bookies were offering odds on Boris Johnson being selected as the Conservative candidate in Mrs Mensch’s Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency.

He’s probably the only person who could save the Tories from defeat there.

And this conference season, there will be plenty of people scrutinising Boris Johnson carefully and wondering if he’s the only person who can save the Tories from defeat nationally.

JON CRAIGEye in the SkyA blonde will

turn heads this conference season


COLUMNS:

PAUL ROUTLEDGEMan with the Mirror

The dreaded ‘E’ word

REFERENDUM Europe is the name of the elephant on the fringe of this year’s conference season. It

would be inside the room, but party managers are keen to avoid divisive set-piece debates on the issue. It will certainly be the talk of the town outside.

The Eurozone’s slow-motion car crash has only served to whet Tory appetites for a national vote on the UK’s future in the EU. Feeling is particularly strong among the impatient 2010 intake of MPs, who sense that momentum is with them.

So far, David Cameron has been able to stem the rising tide of demand with constant repetition of his triple-lock “guarantee” of a referendum on changes that require a new treaty or transfer any fresh powers to Brussels. But this tactic looks increasingly weak and vulnerable.

Pressure is mounting on all sides. On the Right, from backbenchers (and some Cabinet figures), from party members, and from Ukip. On the Left, Ed Miliband is noisily flirting with a referendum in Labour’s next election manifesto. And polling expert Lynton Crosby advised Cameron: “If I was confident Labour was going to do it, I’d get there first.”

Moreover, it’s fashionable. The Scots are to have a referendum on independence or more devolved powers in 2014. The Welsh had a successful referendum on a greater role for Cardiff. The UK had a referendum on electoral reform, which gave the Tories an impressive tactical victory. Even the Falkland Islanders are to have a referendum next year, with the outcome – to stay in a taxpayer-funded British

colony – a foregone conclusion.

No wonder people here, but particularly across England, are asking: Where’s ours?” The most recent poll put support for a national vote at 80 per cent, with 50 per cent demanding it now. Fewer than one in five would be happy with a vote “in the foreseeable future.”

More than eighty Tory MPs have demanded an “in-out” referendum, and the influential Fresh Start Group produced a shopping list of powers – justice, employment law, energy and agriculture - they want the government to repatriate from Brussels as part of a “radically different relationship with the EU.” The outcome of those negotiations would be put to a referendum.

That is the kind of help that self-confessed “practical Euro-sceptic” David Cameron could probably do without amid the glare of conference publicity, especially coming from his former aide George Eustice MP. But the pressure only mounts. Dominic Raab, Tory MP and self-appointed Euroguru, admits that “a referendum now would be a distraction”, but nonetheless urges his leader to offer the public a “referendum sandwich.”

Not one, but two votes! The first would provide a mandate for renegotiation

while the second would be a popular verdict on the terms of any renegotiated deal “against the alternative of withdrawal.”

That scary “W” word is increasingly heard in Tory ranks, setting off alarm bells among Lib Dems. Nick Clegg will have to use his Brighton conference not only to reassert his leadership and sustain the Coalition, but also to raise the tattered standard of Europhilia

Ed Miliband, by contrast, simply has to tease the Tories, a skill he has honed to near-perfection in recent PMQs, to capitalise on the government’s tribulations. Labour has its own Eurosceptics, of course, but they are nothing like as numerous or influential as the Tory dissidents.

The real danger is to Cameron’s political credibility. He has to skirt the rocks of the Scylla referendum while avoiding the Charybdis whirlpool of a Maastricht-style rebellion among his restive MPs. As the historian Ross McKibbin puts it :”Europe could do to Cameron what it did to John Major, even if in the Lib Dems he has a protection Major never had.”

If he is to avoid Major’s fate, of being a one-time-elected Prime Minister, Cameron has no option but to come up with a strategic formula that buys off his Westminster critics, placates rank and file opinion and outflanks Ukip. After conference comes a by-election in the marginal constituency of Corby, where there are already fears that Ukip could push the Tories into third place.

I see no alternative but the promise of a referendum, with a date. Cameron has to ride the elephant, or it will trample his premiership into the ground.

Party managers are keen to avoid divisive set-piece debates on

the issue

““


LIFTING THE CLOUD OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE Social injustice has been a vexed issue for

successive British governments for more than a decade, with each having pledged to

get to the roots of the problem. The Coalition Government’s “Social Justice

Strategy”, however, has prompted some speculation that Whitehall could be on the verge of turning a corner in tackling social injustice. Politics First asked Iain Duncan Smith, Nick Hurd, Helen Newlove, Victor

Adebowale, Herman Stewart and Child Poverty Action Group to discuss how to

improve the life chances of the disadvantaged in the UK...

In spite of the recession, Britain remains the 7th largest economy in the world. In a country so wealthy, it is an injustice

that a whole section of our society remains trapped on the margins. As a London MP, I have seen, firsthand, the way deep-rooted social problems have been allowed to develop in our poorest communities, which is why I set up the Centre for Social Justice in 2004. At the CSJ, we recognised that making a real difference to those living in poverty meant addressing the pathways that had led them there.

Educational failure, addiction,

debt, welfare dependency and family breakdown – these are the multiple and overlapping problems that underpin social disadvantage. They are our five giants, the modern-day equivalents of the great social challenges outlined by William Beveridge seventy years ago, which we must tackle in order to stem social breakdown at its source.

It is a formidable task, but one which this Government is determined to address head-on. This March, we published the Social Justice strategy which established our vision for transforming the lives of the most disadvantaged individuals and families. The strategy is based on new fundamental principles: early intervention to prevent people from falling into difficulty in the first place, and a second chance for those whose lives do go off track, with full recovery as the ultimate outcome.

But real change also comes through reforming how Government delivers services for the most vulnerable – so whether in the reform of the welfare system, the education system, the criminal justice system, credit unions or addiction services, we are now making these principles a reality.

By investing in stable families and children’s early years – doubling the number of Family Nurse Partnerships, extending early education, and putting £30 million into relationship support – we are steering the focus towards areas which we know can make a real

difference to improving children’s life chances.

Through the pioneering use of payment by results – both in the Work Programme and in new innovation fund projects to support disadvantaged young people – we are making sure that every pound of Government money is only being paid out where it has a positive impact on people’s lives.

Behind this sits our vital reform of the benefits system. Universal Credit is a new single payment we are introducing from next year, which will be simpler for people to understand and will ensure that work pays. That is about changing a culture of entrenched dependency, making sure that if you are looking for work, the system incentivises you and takes you on a journey towards independence.

In all this, once again, we take our lead from Beveridge. His guiding belief, that a “revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching”, is as true now as it was in the 1940s. All too often, Government’s response to social breakdown has been a classic case of “patching” – containing problems and limiting the damage, but not believing that there could be a path to fundamental change.

This Government is committed to making a meaningful and sustainable difference to the lives of people who have been left behind. Now is the time to make that change happen.

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Iain Duncan Smith

from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) level 5 Diploma in Management and Leadership a new course designed to draw out their skills and talents as inspirational managers and leaders. At a special graduation ceremony in London the team explained what the experience has meant to them

TAKING THE LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE

appropriate qualification for managers, I experienced frustration and despair at the lack of

Director of Learning and Development at Blenheim CDP. Meeting trainer Alia Taub from Management Focus Training Solutions changed all that. Over the next few months they worked out a course that would test knowledge, skill, reflective practice and be just as relevant to the wider health and social care field and would result in a recognised global qualification.

cent pass rate showed that their investment in an

says.

assessment process that used different skills, from project development to presentations. Managers were faced with challenges and now have the skills, resources and knowledge to face situations

skills of their people, without developing their

of the Chartered Management Institute (CMI).

know what you are doing and that they can trust you. As well as technical experts we have to be

Laraine Start had been a manager at Blenheim CDP for eight years when she embarked on the

me about management styles, change management and the need to read every context differently. It also taught me that learning styles

cheerleader someone to encourage them and

last managers to sign up for the course and admits to hanging back initially. But the

won her over and made her realise that her dyslexia was not a barrier. Presenting the graduation certificates, the Lord Mayor of Westminster, Councillor Angela Harvey,

BECOME A FULLY QUALIFIED MANAGER The Diploma in Management and Leadership is a 14-day programme of study held over ten months, in central London and costs £2,700 for study in 2012/13. It is designed for those who are current managers, or those who are aspiring managers, and gives an opportunity to progress to Chartered Manager status through the CMI. For further information and application forms, contact Training Administrator Blenheim CDP, 66 Bolton Crescent, London SE5 0SE. Tel: 020 7582 2200. email: [email protected]

presentation skills were all assessed and, for me, it was the variety of assessment methods that made it special, unique and rightly


The search for social justice has driven politicians of all colours for centuries. Here we are in 2012; still looking

at unacceptable levels of inequality and still debating what Government should be doing to improve life chances for the disadvantaged in today’s society.

The most effective programmes I have come across are those that want to help people to help themselves and aim a little higher. Some of those are large organisations such as the Princes Trust. Some will grow, like IntoUniversity, who help to raise the aspirations of young people who might not otherwise think university was for them. However, most are very small, very local and often led by residents.

Sometimes interventions can have a dramatic effect. I am very proud to be the Minister responsible for the National Citizen Service because I have seen it turn teenage lives around . Tom from Middlesbrough is just one example. His life was rocked by the death of his mother but he credits NCS with helping him make the transition from ASBOs to a valuable apprenticeship. He is not alone. Across the country parents of NCS graduates are seeing the difference in their children while schools are seeing a change in attitude back in the classroom. That change is driven by the teenagers themselves; responding to each other and supported by people they trust. This is a case of the voluntary sector working in close partnership with Government. It is also a case of innovation driven by an understanding that we needed to do

something better to help teenagers make the transition to adulthood.

The lessons for me are clear. Work through the organisations and networks that people trust, and help them grow. Value the small and local. Be prepared to back genuine innovation. Do not condescend people; believe in them and encourage them to help themselves. Finally, look to build really effective partnerships across the public, private and voluntary sectors that are rooted in a strong sense of mutual obligation to work together for the common good and support people who are less fortunate than yourself. Big Government has failed. Time for something different.

It has been five years since the unprovoked murder of my late husband Garry by drunken fuelled teenagers, in front of my

three young daughters who had to testify in court as eye witnesses. I have never sought to stigmatise a whole generation of young people for this as it is tiny proportion, only around one per cent, who can cause such devastation with their antisocial, criminal actions.

Outside of those who are feral and need incarceration to keep the rest of us safe, there are vulnerable young people who we are in danger of losing forever. I support the many initiatives to get them back on the

right track by effective mentoring, cognitive behaviour, and restorative justice.

But also I do not share the rose tinted glasses that every transgression is to be excused by the usual get out clauses of bad parenting, lack of opportunities, poverty, for example. To me, that is patronising, and highly offensive to the many working class people like my family who may not have had much in the way of money, but gave me and many like me the irreplaceable treasure of strong morals, and social values.

I have seen amazing examples of how we can improve the life chances of the so called ‘disadvantaged’. What does not work are those in power who have never lived in those backyards laying down laws and solutions to problems they will never experience in their comfortable lives. What works outstandingly is local people with local knowledge, reaching out and supporting the most vulnerable, who they will know by name, delivering small but sustainable diversionary opportunities and being helped in turn by resources, knowledge and transferring of power for all agencies – and that means police, local authorities and third sector organisations.

I am justified by my often ridiculed support of the silent army of volunteers. With their help we delivered the best Olympic Games which stunned the cynics and doubters into silence, and did so much good to wipe away the destruction to our national reputation by the summer riots just a year before..On a world stage we showed just what a fantastic country we are – and I would urge every person reading this regardless of your political colour to not let them disappear but harness their energy and willingness to be the Good Neighbour we want to be or live beside. For those who look for maps to follow, I r direct you to see what is happening in communities where ‘ordinary’ citizens have taken control and changed their neighbourhoods for the better? The Communities website will signpost you to lots of activity and sound advice.

Our much promised Olympic legacy should deliver every life opportunity for the disadvantaged and ‘advantaged’ alike. And it is up to us a society to look inward at what we can do individually to support it not just for 2012 but for many years to come.

Minister for Civil SocietyNick Hurd

Baroness Helen NewloveGovernment Champion for Active, Safer Communities


Questions around social action and the need for

collective responsibility have featured heavily in recent

political rhetoric. But what is social action and why is

it important? Children’s charity We’re Altogether Better

is leading the debate.

We’re Altogether Better is a new organisation developed

by the BeatBullying team. Launched in January 2012,

supported by Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society,

and through a £1.3m Social Action Fund grant,

We’re Altogether Better transforms young people’s

lives through social action. Creating unique volunteering

opportunities for young people aged 8-25, We’re

Altogether Better tackles social problems through

online peer-to-peer support networks.

At We’re Altogether Better, social action is action that

does something good and improves the world;

conscious decision to make a difference, to channel

the power we have, alone or together, to make a

positive change. It is about doing the right thing and

treating people properly; uniting behind a common

cause and achieving collective goals – whatever they are.

We’re Altogether Better has four main programmes:

> FutureYou, an online peer mentoring programme

supporting 14- 25-year-olds not in education,

employment or training (NEET).

Of those moving from NEET to EET whilst working with

FutureYou, 18.6% stated that it wouldn’t have

happened without the programme

> CyberMentors, helping young people who might be

being bullied or who are depressed or troubled through

peer support and via qualified counsellors. On average,

CyberMentors reduces bullying, harassment and

antisocial behaviour by 40%, and 72% of young

people report improved wellbeing

> BeatBullying works with children and young people

across the UK to stop bullying, to improve confidence

and enable them to fulfil their potential

> MiniMentors helps primary school children learn how

to look after themselves and respect each other,

encouraging friendships, developing communication

skills and increasing wellbeing. Following MiniMentors

workshops, 87% of the children involved report

enhanced understanding of friendships

And, in 2013, We’re Altogether Better will launch a

fifth programme, MindFull, which will revolutionise the

way young people can access information, advice and

support regarding their wellbeing and mental health.

Find out more about We’re Altogether Better, its

programmes, and how it is shaping the future of social

action in the UK at werealtogetherbetter.org

USING SOCIAL ACTION TO MAKE SOCIETY BETTER – TOGETHER

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K


Poverty presents individuals, communities and governments with vast challenges - and the stakes are

the highest for the most disadvantaged. As the inverse care law states, those who need services most tend to get them the least, but wider society also risks suffering untold damage if we do not meet these challenges.

Defining social justice can itself be tricky. Is social justice the Coalition government’s approach to tackling poverty, compared to the last government’s social exclusion agenda? Or is it something less tangible that puts more emphasis on empowering people? I would like to consider the latter for a moment.

The Social Justice Strategy has many elements that I welcome. Commitments to early intervention and prevention, supporting young people, tackling the roots of multiple disadvantage and recognising the need for collaborative and innovative approaches to service provision are all encouraging aims which I support.

Still, I am concerned by the backdrop of major public spending cuts and the government’s welfare reforms, particularly as recent evidence suggests work does not always pay and there are 3.6 million working households thought to be living on an economic cliff edge.

Child poverty alone costs us around £25 billion annually and taxpayers are subsidising low paid workers with tax

credits just so they can make ends meet. We also know that health inequalities result from social inequalities and cost billions per year in lost productivity and taxes and higher welfare payments. Therefore it is necessary to consider what costs society can and should bear and we should ask ourselves what we are prepared to pay for to sustain a fair society in the long-term. The answer to that question will show us what social justice is and it will likely surpass government and be defined by people themselves.

The government wants local leadership and solutions to poverty but social justice can also be defined in communities. Much effort has gone into defining social justice centrally but it is a notion that develops more comfortably from the common values and appetite for integrated and responsive services that exist in local communities. The government’s role includes showing leadership, upholding fairness and providing a setting where not-for-profit organisations can deliver services alongside other sectors. More collaboration, too, between the public, private and not-for-profit sectors is an effective way of using limited resources and pooling expertise in the public interest.

The inverse care law exists because marginalised people face barriers when accessing services and because services are not usually designed with them in mind. Turning Point works with people with complex needs, including those affected by substance misuse, mental health problems, unemployment and those with a learning disability. Many people face a combination of those problems, so to meet their needs our services have to be integrated and responsive to individual circumstances. Involving people in the process of developing services is also key and has proved very effective.

Our Connected Care projects empower communities by involving local people directly in service design and harnessing their experiences and local knowledge. Local residents lead research and audits of community need and engage with commissioners and service staff, which leads to redesigned bespoke, integrated and cost-effective health and social care services. Cost benefit analyses of some

of the projects have also estimated that savings of £4 can be made for every £1 invested.

Connected Care shows that solutions to local issues are very often with the people themselves and engagement is a key part of the process. To ensure we can build a fairer society and truly understand social justice, we should make sure we look to communities for the answers

As the London Olympics came to an end, I reflected on what Sir Steven Redgrave said: “For all of us, it

is about the Olympics inspiring a future generation.” If we really want to inspire a generation, we should consider mentoring that generation.

Imagine if we could tap into the potential of our younger population and everyone was given support through mentoring regardless of their ability or inability and mentoring was available for those interested in sports, politics, enterprise, media, or hairdressing? Imagine the indisputable difference it would make to society. Imagine if everyone had a mentor and was enabled to build a life they were proud of, where they could

Lord Victor AdebowaleChief Executive of Turning Point

Herman StewartFounder of the award-winning RAMP mentoring programme and author of “Every Child Needs a Mentor”

experience opportunities, validation and liberation. They could be liberated from the stigma established by unfavourable family backgrounds, historical worklessness or career dissatisfaction. If students made the transition from education to employment feeling more equipped, they would be prepared, enthused and driven to thrive.

The greatest injustice within society is the existing class system. That hierarchy is a harsh reality but imagine if those who had the means to would mentor and leverage their social capital to improve the lives of others? If that could be a common reality for many, it would encourage a great proportion of society. That would also create a win-win situation for all, as individuals benefit from the mentee, their community and the economy benefit, as mentoring is one of the most transformational tools to improve one’s psyche, relationships with others and employment or business. My vision is to make mentoring accessible to every young person in the UK and I am confident that the realisation of such a dream would positively transform families, neighbourhoods and the younger generation.

Consider the great unemployment that our country is experiencing at present, with the figures for young people Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) being close to 1 million. The lack of work creates a disillusioned society and, together with the lack of prospects, encourages strain on the social purse. I believe that is due to a crisis-focused approach and if more early intervention was introduced, much needless stress could be eliminated.

To me, mentoring is this initiative and is at the core of the solution by nurturing, enabling, empowering and guiding individuals to do better. Looking at the youth and unemployment statistics, we cannot avoid or be naive about the facts, and our youth need assistance more than ever.

To inspire the next generation, let us use the power of mentoring to bridge gaps that exist. By doing so, we will open up greater prospects for our youth, providing opportunities for the new generation.

Growing up in poverty constitutes a significant disadvantage, both in the here and now but also in

the way that it affects a child’s chances later in life. Most obviously, poverty has a profound impact on educational achievement, constraining options as well as potential earnings in the future.

Poverty simply wipes out any inherent educational advantage a child may have. Research shows, for example, that by the age of 7, children from affluent backgrounds who were ranked as lower ability at 22 months have overtaken those from poorer backgrounds who score highly at this early point.

By the age of 14, children receiving free school meals, the most commonly used proxy for low income, are on average five school terms behind their more affluent peers.

Do good schools hold the answer to this problem? There is ample evidence to show that not only do children from poorer backgrounds benefit from good schools, but that they benefit more than their wealthier counterparts from such provision. Such investments by the Labour government between 2007 and 2010 appear to prove the point: during this period the proportion of children receiving free school meals attaining at least five

GSCEs rose from 36 per cent to 65 per cent, with the gap between these and other students falling by a third over this period. Likewise, the coalition’s Pupil Premium is informed by the same logic, directing additional funds to schools with higher numbers of low income pupils.

But good schools are not the only missing piece in the jigsaw. We know that children from low income backgrounds still achieve lower grades even when they attend the same good schools as their wealthier peers. Research by the Financial Times shows that children living in the bottom fifth of postcodes do far worse on average at GCSE than children from less deprived postcodes; no matter what school the children are at, the gap is sustained. ”.

Yet when we stop to think one moment that conclusion should be self-evident. Where does a child who lives in a damp, overcrowded house do their homework? How can poorer children concentrate all day if they go to school after an inadequate breakfast? How do parents who are stressed and exhausted by poverty help their children learn? Or pay for the uniforms, school trips and revision guides that are nowadays a required part of a ‘free’ education?

Poorer children do worse within the system, but outside the system this holds true as well. Increased autonomy over admissions procedures ensures that academies and religious schools take fewer children from low income families even when such schools are located in more deprived areas.

In addition, truancy and exclusions are far more common among children from poorer backgrounds.

The complex system of social, economic and cultural exclusion that is poverty cannot simply be compensated for by a good school.

Education can open up opportunity. But if we are really serious about improving the life chances of the 3.6 million children who are growing up in poverty in the UK today, we need to recognise that in the absence of an adequate family income, such children will always be at a profound disadvantage whether they attend a good school or not.

Alison GarnhamChief Executive, Child Poverty Action Group


CORRIDORS:

Meeting the challenges to British Foreign Policy William Hague, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

We are living through perhaps the most unpredictable and unstable global environment since the end of the Cold War. We face urgent crises from Iran’s nuclear programme to the

slaughter of civilians taking place in Syria today, as well as upheaval, tension and change across the Middle East.

Syria is our most pressing concern. The violence is utterly unacceptable; those responsible for these crimes will be held to account. We will continue to isolate the regime internationally, deliver humanitarian aid, assist the opposition through non-lethal means and promote a peaceful political transition.

The coming year will be crucial to nuclear non-proliferation efforts. We remain committed to a negotiated solution with Iran but the onus is on Tehran to prove to the international community that their nuclear programme is for peaceful energy only and to give up any aspirations they might have to acquire nuclear weapons.

In Afghanistan our combat role will change from the end of 2014 but we have pledged an enduring commitment to the Afghan people. We have dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda but we must not let it regroup elsewhere in the world. That is why, with our allies, we are paying increasing attention to regions of concern like the Sahel.

Beyond that there is an extraordinary shift in economic power and influence internationally, away from the developed economies of the West and towards the South and East.

We are seeing the dispersal of that power between a wider number of countries, and an explosion of connections between governments, economies and citizens driven by the internet, satellite television and mobile phone technology.

That is fuelling movements for economic and political reform such as

the Arab Spring. It is a more complicated international landscape, with many more centres of decision-making.

The world is becoming more multilateral, but it is also becoming more bilateral at the same time: it is not setting into ideologically-opposed geographical blocs, but we see many more flexible relationships that cut across geography, religion and political orientation.

Such changes make it harder for us to get our way in foreign policy. But the changes in the world undoubtedly also bring immense opportunities for innovation, trade, and global growth: the world economy is projected to double from $60 trillion to $120 trillion over the next fifteen years.

To deal with this world Britain needs a Foreign Office that is not just ‘fit for purpose’ but a centre for diplomatic excellence. We have introduced a sharper focus on commercial diplomacy, with a reinforced economics unit, more staff seconded to business, and Charter for Business.

We have restored a proper emphasis on building strong bilateral relationships, the key to regional influence and an effective role in international organisations like the UN. That means tapping into our networks and relationships beyond Europe and America - in Asia and throughout the Commonwealth - and reinvigorating ties with old allies like Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Britain needs expeditionary diplomacy: responding to challenges before they become crises – so over the last year we hosted the London Conference on Cyberspace and the London Conference on Somalia.

We are opening up to 19 new Embassies, consulates or trade offices. Britain now has the largest diplomatic network in India of any nation in the world and we will be one of very few countries in the world to have an Embassy in every nation of ASEAN.

Britain does not have to choose between the EU and our essential relationship with the US and the rest of the world. Foreign policy is not a zero-sum game.

Our ties with Europe are deep. More than forty per cent of our trade is with our European partners. Europe is changing because of the crisis in the Eurozone and it is impossible to predict with certainty what the EU will look like at the end of it.

As the Eurozone crisis proves, every European country faces a fundamental challenge of competitiveness. It should be our central task to ensure our countries can secure their future prosperity.

This is how we are responding to the challenges and opportunities in today’s world: the expansion of British diplomacy, an active and engaged role in the European Union, a greater focus on bilateral relationships, a programme of Diplomatic Excellence to build up the Foreign Office for the long-term, and embracing the digital technologies of the 21st century.

“We have restored a proper emphasis on

building strong bilateral relationships”

www.lobbyforcyprus.org www.twitter.com/lobbyforcyprus [email protected]

Lobby for Cyprus is a non-party-political organisation with the aim of reuniting Cyprus

At a recent meeting at the UK Parliament a series of prominent speakers historically associated with the search to find a settlement in Cyprus, expressed disappointment that no solution had been found to-date on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, despite the best efforts of the international community

Alexander Downer (Special Adviser on Cyprus to the UN Secretary-General), Jack Straw and David Hannay (former British Special Representative for Cyprus) in particular expressed surprise that Greek Cypriots had not accepted the 2004 Annan Plan to carve up the island along racial and religious grounds and in doing so supposedly legitimised the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. At the meeting, representatives from Lobby for Cyprus questioned whether a settlement can be reached on the basis of a bi-zonal agreement that is consistent with international norms. To begin with, any settlement must respect basic human rights and international law. Turning a blind eye to Turkey’s well documented human rights violations1, is unacceptable. Refugees must be permitted to repossess their homes and land, the illegally settled Turkish colonists sent to change the ethnic balance must be compulsorily but humanely repatriated, and of course the Turkish army of occupation must go.

But there is perhaps today an even more cogent reason why any bi-zonal settlement is doomed to fail. Back in the 1950s when splitting the island along Greek and Turkish lines was first mooted, and even during the 1970s when the idea of a bi-zonal federal solution was first suggested, the demographic composition of Cyprus was relatively straightforward. In the 1960 census when Cyprus became independent 78.2% of the population was classified as Greek Cypriot, meaning Greek speaking and Christian Orthodox (the small Maronite, Latin and Armenian communities were

included in this figure), 18.13% was classified as Turkish speaking and Muslim, and the remainder classified as ‘others’ and made up just 3.66% of the population.

However in the 2011 census in the free areas of Cyprus unsurprisingly, the ethnic composition reflected a very different racial make up. Over 21% of the population, almost one fifth, is now made up of ‘others’. These include not only Eastern Orthodox groups such

as Russians, Bulgarians, Georgians and Greeks but also 27,000 Brits, 10,000 Filipinos, 7,000 Sri Lankans and 7,000 Vietnamese. These results are unsurprising because Cyprus has simply followed the trend of other countries in Europe and genuinely developed into a multicultural society.

As to the occupied area, the exact population figures remain shrouded in mystery and conjecture but what is beyond doubt is that hundreds of thousands of Turkish colonists have poured in and swamped the Turkish Cypriots, forcing them to emigrate. And there are also thousands of Brits, other Europeans, and residents from other states living, probably illegally on stolen land, in the occupied area. What is clear however is that whilst the overwhelming inhabitants of the occupied area may now be Muslim, they are certainly not Turkish Cypriot.

The demographic composition of

Cyprus is therefore not as simple as classifying its citizens as Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot and this makes a solution based on a Greek / Turkish split a nonsense. Unsurprisingly, no sensible settlement has been found. Those who pretend to be genuinely interested in a Cyprus settlement should take the trouble to evaluate why bi-zonality is unworkable and to understand the realities on the ground.

What type of precedent would such a solution set not only in Europe but elsewhere? In the UK for example what would happen if the major cities were to be split on ethnic and religious lines, as seems to be intended for Cyprus?

If Turkey succeeds in legitimising the division of Cyprus along racial and religious grounds how will this impact on the UK? Is it in the UK’s interests to support such a settlement?

The solution is obvious. Cyprus must be reunited as a unitary state with minority rights respected. To allow minorities to form their own state or have their own self-administered zone within a unitary state would be the thin edge of the wedge and has no place in multicultural Europe.

Can a bi-zonal solution be found for Cyprus?

Allowing minorities to form their own state or self-administered zone within a unitary state has no place in multicultural Europe

1 See Council of Europe, European Commission of Human Rights applications 6780/74 and 6950/75 Cyprus against Turkey report of Commission, July 1976; European Court of Human Rights Cyprus v Turkey judgment, May 2001; Sunday Times ‘The terrible secrets of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus’, 23 January 1977.


CORRIDORS:

Multilateralism in an age of global challenges Douglas Alexander,Shadow Foreign Secretary

Britain’s authority around the world is under sustained challenge – but our influence has rarely been more needed.

The challenges come from the new and evolving context in which British foreign policy is today being conducted – where we now risk being less relevant in the two spheres of influence that have for so long sustained us.

Less relevant in a European Union that is focused on the crisis and consequences of a currency that the last Labour government rightly decided not to join.

And less relevant to a United States weary of ten years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq - and now consciously rebalancing its priorities and its focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Those changes are partly the result of momentous developments both within and between states of the kind that happen once in a generation - and I am convinced they will continue to shape the future trajectory of our foreign policy for decades to come.

The first is the transmission of economic power. The financial crisis of 2008 actually accelerated pre-existing trends: a generational shift in wealth and power from West to East, North to South.

As Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard argues, we are not actually witnessing the rise of Asia: it is the recovery of Asia.

In 1800, more than half the world’s population lived in Asia and made half the world’s products, but by the 1900’s this output had fallen substantially and they were only making one fifth of the world’s products.

What we are seeing now in Asia is a return to this 50/50 balance.

So when history looks back on the last decade, it will not be remembered for the 3 words ‘War on Terror.’ It will be remembered for the three words ‘Made in China’.

The second truth we need to recognise is the transfusion of power from states to citizens.

Part of the strength of Arab dictators over recent decades was the monopoly they held on information. As Fareed Zakaria reminds us, in 1991 the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was declared a state secret by Saudi Arabia, its neighbouring country. And it remained a secret to the Saudi Arabian population for 8 days.

Today, such an event would be global knowledge in seconds. The time it takes to send a single tweet.

And the collapse of the states’ monopoly on information in many Middle East countries – firstly broken by Al Jazeera and now by social media - contributed to the recent collapse of dictatorships in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. That is power shifting not between countries, but within them.

Today’s foreign policy environment poses real and grave challenges to this country – ones that are hard to resolve and even more difficult to predict.

But what is clear is that, in order to navigate those new challenges we need a coherent approach to conducting a multilateral foreign policy in an increasingly multi-polar world.

The threats we face transcend borders – threats to the global economy, climate change, terrorism, food and water supplies - all requiring international cooperation to an extent not previously required.

The UK has significant strategic and economic interests dependent on engaging and influencing countries that vastly outstrip us in terms of population, natural resources or the scale of their militaries. Of course, our bilateral relationships with those countries will be important.

But bilateral relationships can only take you so far.

The need and case for multilateralism in the modern world is a fact that no government can deny or ignore.

“What we are seeing now in Asia is a return to this

50/50 balance”


CORRIDORS:

Don’t blame the world Dr Liam Fox, Conservative MP for North Somerset

Western leaders have become increasingly fond of telling us that our economic woes are part of the wider global economic problems. The trouble is that this story just does

not fit the facts. Since the year 2000, total global GDP has risen from around $30 trillion to around $70 trillion. Even since the Lehman Bros collapse and the consequent banking turbulence, it has grown by 20 per cent. While European leaders increasingly obsess about their self-made crisis in the Eurozone and its consequences, the countries they refer to as “emerging economies” are tearing over the economic horizon.

Let us be honest. Our problems do not lie in the general world economy. We have a problem in the United States and Europe with huge levels of debt, the result of fiscal incontinence and the insane belief that we could continue to live beyond our means without a day of reckoning arriving. In Europe, the sheer ineptitude in the creation and management of the single currency project continues to reverberate with leaders staggering from one bailout summit to another. In Britain, the debt crisis left behind (yet again) by a failed Labour government is exacerbated by overregulation and a fiscal approach that is still too heavily tilted towards maintaining bloated state spending rather than wealth creation.

The Coalition government in Britain recognised from the outset that the huge budget deficit would have to be eliminated and the reward for this courage has been historically low borrowing rates, allowing structural rebalancing within a stable framework. But the scale of the problem remains enormous.

When, under Tony Blair, his Chancellor Gordon Brown abandoned the previous Conservative Government’s strict spending policies, Britain’s national debt began an inexorable rise.

Despite the benign economic environment of the time, from 2002-2007 under Labour, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP actually increased - from around 31 per cent to around 37 per cent. On the back of the financial crisis it has ballooned to around 70 per cent of GDP.

By 2009/10 that meant the Government was spending over £150bilion more than it received in income. The annual interest that we have to pay on our debt – at around £4.5billion – is bigger than the budgets for defence, the Foreign Office and overseas aid combined. It means that each taxpayer has to pay around £1500 per year in tax just to fund the interest, and without any debt actually being paid off.

Based on the 2010 U.S. budget, it was estimated that total national debt would almost double in dollar terms between 2008 and 2015 and grow to nearly 100 per cent of GDP. However, ahead of predictions, some sources maintain that the 100 per cent ratio was reached in the third quarter of 2011 and that this has risen to around 115 per cent today. What it took total war to achieve in the 1940s has been achieved by total mismanagement today. That has consequences beyond simple economics, for debt is also a strategic issue.

The United States, with its huge debt interest payments burden, is cutting its defence spending to help make ends meet – around $500bilion over this decade. The irony seems to be lost on some that much of this debt interest will end up in Moscow and Beijing. In other words, America has been more enfeebled by welfarism and big government than it ever was by the ideology or practice of communism.

Economic strength is the wellspring of political and international influence. Economic failure will lead to the collapse of political fortunes and with it a collapse in global influence.

So how will we get growth in Britain? Not from consumers who are already changing their behaviour to reduce their personal debt. Not from Government which is engaged in deficit reduction. If we want to get growth we need to free up the money locked up by an over taxed and over regulated economy and bring more money in from direct investment and better export earnings. That will require labour market reforms to make us more competitive and to make job creation easier. It also requires tax simplification and tax reduction on employers paid for by further public expenditure reductions.

We do not need to look at history to see where huge indebtedness leads though it is littered with examples of how economic collapse can lead to internal political upheaval and external loss of influence. We need only look across the European continent to the predictable tragedy that is Greece or the horror of Spain’s youth unemployment to see why change is vital. The rest of the world does not owe us a living and is doing rather well. The quicker we awaken to this reality the better.

“Our problems do not lie in the general world

economy”


CORRIDORS:

Ensuring British military combat-readiness Jim Murphy, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

The global security landscape is changing irrevocably. Arab Spring recast orthodoxies showed that sustainable stability depends on political freedom. Demographic change is increasing pressure

on, and possible conflict over, stretched natural resources. Weak and failing states outnumber strong states two to one. Long-term security effects of climate change may reinforce tendencies to state failure. Increasing availability of technology means new types of weaponry are being developed.

That immense change comes at a time of unavoidable budgetary constraint. The global economic downturn and the Government’s failure to stimulate domestic private sector growth, coupled with persistent problems in procurement, mean defence spending must increase at a lower rate than it did during our time in government.

Today, ambitions must be met through new solutions. There is no trade-off between savings and strategy, and UK defence policy has five priorities to ensure we are combat-ready in this ever-changing world. Our aim must be to instil agility and flexibility across our Force structures and defence posture.

We must reform our Forces. Ministers plan to reduce the Army to 82,000, the smallest since the Boer War, and fill this capability gap with our brilliant but part time Reservists. That is a military gamble with huge questions over achievability. Cuts to capability are being made with little detail on how we will achieve more with less.

We support our Reserves being an essential element in achieving defence outputs, but civilian skills should be used as specialisms and they must integrate with Regular Forces pre and during deployment. In addition, a flexible posture demands advanced Special Forces and their role will become increasingly significant.

We must demand greater efficiency, but also correct ‘top heavy’

structures. We have a higher number of officers across all three services than both French and American air, land and maritime forces, but the government plans to perpetuate rather than challenge this imbalance. If our armed forces are to be reshaped effectively, we need disproportionate reductions of senior officers.

Ministers focus almost solely on structures, not purpose. We believe a leaner British armed forces must retain an interventionist stance, born from the conviction that we have responsibilities beyond our borders and that security overseas will support safety at home. We must continue to defend our interests and values overseas, but in today’s interdependent world risks are increasingly shared and solutions must be too. That demands a new multilateralism in defence, forming new defence partnerships, maximising our strength by integrating resources.

That is particularly important with regard to NATO. Alliance members are making significant cuts to defence capability in isolation of one another, the aggregate consequence of which may be significant capability shortfalls across the Alliance. We must explore how to maximise capability by co-ordinating decision-making. The practice of fighting conflicts together but preparing for them individually must come to an end.

Future defence policy must be better co-ordinated with development, recasting our notion of intervention so that it enables effective national and local governance, frameworks for civil justice, functioning rule of law and legitimate civil police. Deployment of non-military forces such as border or civilian police should always be considered alongside other ‘soft’ tools such as trade agreements, diplomatic engagement or public diplomacy strategies.

Reform must go from ‘tooth to tail’, and that includes the Ministry of Defence itself. Careful reduction in numbers of civil servants is necessary, but without an effective and efficient Department driving strategy and delivery security objectives will be hampered. Reform of Defence Equipment and Support to make the organisation a Non Departmental Public Body, to increase independence but retain accountability and uncompromised focus, is essential, as is creation of a culture of consequences through professionalisation of defence procurement.

Finally, the evolving security landscape will demand new capabilities and a modernised, responsive defence industry, supported by an active industrial strategy, can deliver them. Targeted R&D investment, Urgent Operational Requirements linked to the longer-term equipment programme as well as clear targets to ensure efficiency are all vital components of a modern industry. We must provide industry with greater certainty and support, in particular with greater clarity over long-term sovereign capabilities.

Our Forces’ professionalism is matched only by their humility. We must have a defence strategy that is as bold as they are brave and as wide-ranging as today’s security challenges are great.

“The practice of fighting conflicts together but

preparing for them individually must come to

an end”


CORRIDORS:

Looking to the past to safeguard the futureDr Duncan Anderson, Head of War Studies Department, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst

When he was teaching at the Army Staff College shortly after the First World War, Britain’s pre-eminent military theorist, Colonel JFC Fuller, identified three components essential to

what he called “fighting power”. Those were the material (equipment), the moral (manpower) and the conceptual (education and training) dimensions of war. With only minor modifications, Fuller’s analysis remains the key to understanding combat capability to this day. Faced with a massive ‘black-hole’ of some £38 billion in the defence budget, the government has had to find savings, without simultaneously reducing the ‘fighting power’ of the armed forces.

Reducing expenditure on the material component was painful but relatively straightforward. In addition to the cancellation of a number of planned procurement programmes, the navy lost a number of warships, the air force the Harriers, and the army a number of AFVs, including a substantial number of MBTs. Components essential to an expeditionary capability, however, particularly the aircraft carriers, the Type 45 destroyers, and long -range transport and refuelling aircraft, were retained or added to the inventory. That rebalancing will serve not only to enhance the reach of the armed forces, but will also ensure the survival of a workforce skilled in many aspects of weapon design.

Reducing expenditure on the moral component has been much more painful, because this hits the personnel of the armed forces, and the willingness of airmen, sailors and soldiers to give their all for their service and their country. All the services face reductions, but those imposed on the army, redundancy for 20 per cent of those now serving, are making the deepest impact. At the moment, Britain has one of the best armies it has ever possessed, composed of battle-hardened veterans, many of whom have had five or six operational tours over the past six or seven years. The morale of those on operations remains extraordinarily high, but many now believe that the best the future holds for them is the boredom of barrack life in ever contracting units

back in the UK, and some excellent soldiers may choose to leave.

By 2020, the strength of the regular army will stand at 82,000, the smallest army Britain has had since the early eighteenth-century. The shortfall will be made up by expanding the Territorial Army, which will become a fully deployable reserve. All regulars agree that individual TA soldiers have given outstanding service in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these same TA soldiers are the first to stress that their own units, as presently constituted, would be incapable of effective deployment on operations in much less than a year of intensive training. Bringing the TA up to a level approaching that of regular units will take time and money, so the reliance on the TA might not prove to be much of an economy, certainly not if it is to be taken seriously. And that reliance on the TA reinforces fears within the regulars that a ‘two tier’ army will emerge by 2020, with well-trained well-equipped brigades to carry out assault operations, followed by the ‘also-rans’, predominantly light infantry which will be engaged in ‘sustainability’ operations. That fear may prove to be fanciful, but at the moment it is widespread.

The conceptual component involves the education and training of our armed forces. In the early 1930s, when Britain faced a similar financial crisis, training budgets for all services were slashed. In 1939, we deployed divisions to France which had never trained as formations, commanded by officers who had never been on a properly conducted staff-ride, along with an air force which rejected any notion that it should support ground forces. The result was the debacle of May 1940, from which the British Expeditionary Force escaped more by good luck than good management.

Lessons from that time have sunk deep into the collective consciousness of all three services; though some budgets have been trimmed, others, particularly those funding new educational technology and various aspects of cyber war, have been generally maintained or even expanded. As the Viscount Alanbrooke once observed, in the 1930s a hungry army ate its brain. Though there have been attempts to wipe out parts of the conceptual apparatus, thus far his successors have been able to keep much of the grey-matter intact and functioning.

Faced with a large short-fall in funding, senior officers of all three services and their civilian counter-parts have restructured the armed forces so that they can deal with contingencies anticipated by the Strategic Defence and Security Review. If the assumptions underlying that review prove to be correct, the new structures should prove adequate.

But if the assumptions prove to have been overly optimistic, if, for example, some disaster in Afghanistan delays transition, or some crisis in the Middle East drags in a large part of our armed forces, the lights in the Ministry of Defence will once more burn long into the night. So far they have managed hugely difficult reductions far more adroitly than did their predecessors in the 1930s; there has been some very skilful management but they will also require more than a little luck.

“At the moment, Britain has one of the best armies

it has ever possessed”


CORRIDORS:

Failing people who put their lives at risk for our country Katy Clark, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Armed Forces Veterans’ Pensions

Probably some of the situations which I have found most disturbing as a constituency MP have been when ex-members of the armed forces with severe injuries, whether

they be physical or psychological, have come to me for help to get housing, benefits, aids for their disabilities and access to healthcare. I have been shocked at the way I have had to fight for basic services such as suitable housing with a ramp and which is adapted with rails for someone who has lost the use of their limbs in conflict or for benefits or access to healthcare services for those who have suffered psychological trauma.

There has been much talk of the “military covenant” in the chamber of the House of Commons in the seven years I have been an MP and, particularly in opposition, the Conservative Party had much to say about it but all too often the reality on the ground does not live up to the impressive rhetoric.

Army pensions are an excellent example of how we fail to take responsibility for those who have fought and put life and limb at risk on our behalf.

The situation as it affects the Gurkhas was high profile in the last Parliament with the 2009 Parliamentary vote for settlement rights also bringing attention to the Labour Government’s grant of pension rights to those Gurkhas who retired after 1997. The campaign to get full pensions rights for those Gurkhas who retired before 1997, who currently only get a third of the entitlement of UK armed forces, continues with an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

There has been little discussion, however, of those UK ex-regular service veterans in the period from 1949 to the end of the tax year in 1975 who receive no pension unless they had completed more than 22 years service (16 years for

commissioned officers). Already more than 300,000 have signed the Equality for Veterans petition calling for pensions for these veterans and I hope that we can at least get a Parliamentary debate on this issue when Parliament returns after the Conference Recess.

This June, the Ministry of Defence announced the redundancy of over 3,000 service personnel, and this July, it was announced that 17 army units will be axed which means overall strength will be reduced by 20,000. There will be at least two rounds of redundancies next year and in 2014.

There has been outrage not just that some of those who have already received redundancy notices have seen recent action but also that a number of those were within months of their immediate pension point and so will lose out as a result of this unfortunate timing. It is thought likely that many of those affected in further rounds of redundancies will be put in a similar position unless there is a change of policy.

The Ministry are also now proposing that the age that armed personnel can claim their pensions could rise from 55 to 60 years old, that it moves from a final salary scheme to a career average and that the length of service for a full pension increases from 18 years to 20 years.

That proposal is, of course, a kick in the teeth for those who have been campaigning for a more meaningful “military covenant” and indeed for decent pensions for all of those who have served in our armed forces. I have always taken the view that pensions should be considered deferred pay.

We know that, for many, army pay is already poor and those proposals represent an effective pay cut and a step back from conditions which were not won easily. The changes will affect all service personnel under the age of 45 years and basically mean that the armed services will have to serve longer but for a smaller pension.

If we expect people to put their life on the line for a small wage surely the very least we can do is ensure they at least retain the pension provisions currently in place. I hope that over the coming months we get some real attention on this part of public sector pension reforms.

We need to debate why we should give our veterans the dignity of a decent pension in retirement and the Government needs to rethink its proposals.

We need to at the very least safeguard the pension provisions which currently exist and, in my opinion, look again at how we treat our service personnel to ensure that we at least provide some kind of basic dignity when they leave the armed forces.

“I have always taken the view that pensions should

be considered deferred pay”

Armed Forces Pensions:

This summer is seeing some clarity

emerge in the new reality of Armed

Forces pensions, with its winners

and its losers. But the real test is yet

to come.

Nobody who studies the transitional

arrangements and the accrued rights

should be in any doubts as to their

fairness. And in both areas, our

briefings to the many audiences we

talk to (up 12,000 servicemen and

women in a year) is that both are ‘As

good as it gets’ - for those who are

covered. They understand that simple,

robust message and believe it from us

when they are reluctant to believe it

from others.

So far so good. On the other hand,

with the publication of the outline

design for the new scheme, to come

in from 2015, many are bound to

make unfavourable comparisons with

those who have gone before them. It

is, as we all know, and we still have

some tricky calculations to make,

something like a 12% reduction in

value on what has gone before.

That follows hard on the heels of

the 15% reduction in value caused

by lowering the inflation index to CPI.

We note that those on the fringe of

the public sector such as the Bank

of England, conspicuously, remain

welded to RPI and, again, raise the

question:

‘What is fairness’? Are we all in this together, or not?

Servicemen and women are

beginning to see at first hand what

the new era means to them, very

personally. Many will be reluctant to

acknowledge that the first recipients

of the new scheme in toto will not

emerge until the 2030s.

Let us be under no illusions, the

new pension scheme will usher in

a fundamental change in lifestyle

choices for longer serving ranks.

There can be little question of any

servicemen and women ‘retiring’

at the end of their service.

That huge source of good works and

charitable giving of time which we

see in charities, in sports clubs

and in educational governance, that

‘Big Society’ in the flesh, will be

‘squeezed’, as those leaving

the colours seek at least another

12 years of paid employment.

Longer serving servicemen and

women will now have to prepare

for their next phase in life far more

carefully, with no assumption that it

will be ‘alright on the night’. Senior

NCOs and Warrant Officers will never,

under current manning rules, qualify

for an immediate full pension and very

few officers just might.

The much-heralded, but long

awaited, New Employment Model may

alleviate this, but only by employing

people to a greater age. Is that what

we want for our Armed Forces?

In-service qualifications, outplacement

and second (spouses’) salaries will

come further to the fore.

And that gives our nation

opportunities to grasp those whose

life skills have, for the most part,

been immeasurably enhanced by their

Service challenges.

But the job is not yet finished,

indeed, it has hardly begun. It is our

task in the months ahead to explain

to the Services in clear and simple

messages that times have changed,

irrevocably, in this area; to pose

the question ‘What other job might

you do which would offer you a

better pension?

We think the honest, critical answer

to this question would result in a

progressive realisation that what is

offered to the Armed Forces is a fair

deal for the Services and an affordable

deal for the nation, for the next

25 years.

Forces Pension Society68 South Lambeth Road,

Vauxhall,

London, SW8 1RL

Tel: 020 7582 0469

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.forcespensionsociety.org

Forces Pension Society is an independent not-for-profit

organisation and is a member of the Confederation of

British Service and Ex-Service Organisations

Herford,Germany

A member of

Armed Forces Pensions:

This summer is seeing some clarity

emerge in the new reality of Armed

Forces pensions, with its winners

and its losers. But the real test is yet

to come.

Nobody who studies the transitional

arrangements and the accrued rights

should be in any doubts as to their

fairness. And in both areas, our

briefings to the many audiences we

talk to (up 12,000 servicemen and

women in a year) is that both are ‘As

good as it gets’ - for those who are

covered. They understand that simple,

robust message and believe it from us

when they are reluctant to believe it

from others.

So far so good. On the other hand,

with the publication of the outline

design for the new scheme, to come

in from 2015, many are bound to

make unfavourable comparisons with

those who have gone before them. It

is, as we all know, and we still have

some tricky calculations to make,

something like a 12% reduction in

value on what has gone before.

That follows hard on the heels of

the 15% reduction in value caused

by lowering the inflation index to CPI.

We note that those on the fringe of

the public sector such as the Bank

of England, conspicuously, remain

welded to RPI and, again, raise the

question:

‘What is fairness’? Are we all in this together, or not?

Servicemen and women are

beginning to see at first hand what

the new era means to them, very

personally. Many will be reluctant to

acknowledge that the first recipients

of the new scheme in toto will not

emerge until the 2030s.

Let us be under no illusions, the

new pension scheme will usher in

a fundamental change in lifestyle

choices for longer serving ranks.

There can be little question of any

servicemen and women ‘retiring’

at the end of their service.

That huge source of good works and

charitable giving of time which we

see in charities, in sports clubs

and in educational governance, that

‘Big Society’ in the flesh, will be

‘squeezed’, as those leaving

the colours seek at least another

12 years of paid employment.

Longer serving servicemen and

women will now have to prepare

for their next phase in life far more

carefully, with no assumption that it

will be ‘alright on the night’. Senior

NCOs and Warrant Officers will never,

under current manning rules, qualify

for an immediate full pension and very

few officers just might.

The much-heralded, but long

awaited, New Employment Model may

alleviate this, but only by employing

people to a greater age. Is that what

we want for our Armed Forces?

In-service qualifications, outplacement

and second (spouses’) salaries will

come further to the fore.

And that gives our nation

opportunities to grasp those whose

life skills have, for the most part,

been immeasurably enhanced by their

Service challenges.

But the job is not yet finished,

indeed, it has hardly begun. It is our

task in the months ahead to explain

to the Services in clear and simple

messages that times have changed,

irrevocably, in this area; to pose

the question ‘What other job might

you do which would offer you a

better pension?

We think the honest, critical answer

to this question would result in a

progressive realisation that what is

offered to the Armed Forces is a fair

deal for the Services and an affordable

deal for the nation, for the next

25 years.

Forces Pension Society68 South Lambeth Road,

Vauxhall,

London, SW8 1RL

Tel: 020 7582 0469

E-mail: [email protected]

Web: www.forcespensionsociety.org

Forces Pension Society is an independent not-for-profit

organisation and is a member of the Confederation of

British Service and Ex-Service Organisations

Herford,Germany

A member of


CORRIDORS:

A transport system capable of serving a globally competitive economy Theresa Villiers,Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet

This Government continues to make its priority the rebuilding of our economy and to focus on making sure we can compete in global markets. Significant investment

in transport infrastructure will be a key part of working toward that aim.

Our vision is for a faster and greener transport system that will provide the basis for a growing and competitive economy. Projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink and High Speed 2 represent some of the larger commitments we have made to this end since May 2010 but we also understand the importance of and are committed to making smaller-scale improvements such as tackling pinch points on our motorways.

There has been a rail renaissance since privatisation. More people are travelling by rail now than at any time since the 1920s. The rail improvement programme we are committed to delivering is the largest since the Victorian era, with more than £18 billion worth of investment in this spending review period alone.

Our electrification programme is the largest the country has ever seen and will benefit passengers up and down the country. It will include lines from the south coast to the east and west midlands and south Yorkshire, valleys lines into Cardiff and the completion of the electrification of the Great Western main line to Swansea.

The previous Government electrified just 10 miles of railway, but we have now set out plans for more than 850 more miles of electrified railway. By the time that is completed at the turn of the decade, on current estimates, three quarters of all rail journeys in England and Wales will be made on greener and more reliable electric trains which cost less to run than the diesel trains presently in use. The Northern Hub project has got the go ahead

in full which will provide vitally needed improvements to rail services between major cities in the north of England.

It is equally important that we meet our responsibility to keep our railway affordable for taxpayers and passengers. The independent review published last year by Sir Roy McNulty identified inefficiencies in our rail industry worth up to £3.5 billion a year. We are determined to bring down the costs of running the railways. We have published a reform plan to enable us to deliver savings on the scale that the McNulty study said was achievable. A key part of that is making sure the different elements of the rail industry work more cohesively together with a strong shared incentive to focus on reducing costs across the whole system.

The Government’s vision for the railways is clear: a railway system that is faster, more reliable, less crowded and greener.

Turning to aviation, our goal is to ensure that aviation makes a really positive contribution to economic growth but also addresses its environmental and noise impacts. Last year, we published a scoping document on aviation. The 600 or so responses we received were used to prepare the draft aviation policy framework on which we are now consulting and which sets out the overarching economic and environmental framework within which we want to see aviation grow.

Later in the year we intend to issue an open call for evidence on maintaining the UK’s international aviation connectivity. The Chancellor announced in last year’s Autumn Statement that we would explore the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.

In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with action right now to improve our airports. We are trialling new operating practices at Heathrow which we believe could improve punctuality and reduce the number of unscheduled night flights; we are modernising the rules for airport economic regulation to put the passenger interest first; and we are reforming the way aviation security is regulated to enable checks to be delivered in a more passenger-friendly and efficient way.

We are also improving surface access to a number of airports: Crossrail is expected to provide direct services from Canary Wharf and the City to the airport for the first time; Gatwick is getting a major station upgrade and better rail services with Thameslink. Luton will also benefit from Thameslink and improved road access is on the way, too. Manchester is getting a new Metrolink tram extension. In the longer-term, High Speed 2 will provide greatly improved surface access to Birmingham, bringing thousands more people within easy reach of the airport.

This article was written when Theresa Villiers was Minister of State for Transport

“Our electrification programme is the largest

the country has ever seen”

We think it’s time politicians ‘do as they say’ on High Speed 2.

Prime Minister David Cameronspeaking on the Andrew Marr Show

HS2: It’s time to think again

www.hs2actionalliance.org

The DfT insist that HS2 is needed to relieve capacity issues on the West Coast Main Line, but FirstGroup say on winning the WCML franchise that it has ‘a considerable amount of unused capacity’. When the trains are extended to 11 coaches this year, they will just be 35% occupied allowing them to swallow a doubling in demand without needing any more capacity.

Then there’s the re-balancing of the north/south divide. Or is there? Academics suggest there is no valid evidence for the claimed transformational benefits. In fact, if you connect two cities the theory and evidence suggests the dominant one wins.

Doesn’t HS2 have a good business case? Not any more. Even the DfT admit it’s much worse and near to half what it was in 2010. We have also demonstrated that the real Benefit to Cost ratio (BCR) is 90p* for every £1 of taxpayers’ money – a 10p loss! And its not just us, the Public Accounts Committee cite unrealistic pricing assumptions;

exaggerated demand; ‘untenable’ values of time savings while using the ‘simplifying’ assumption that people don’t work on trains (that the DfT say accounts for 40% of HS2 benefits); as well as insufficient analysis of alternatives.

Still, aren’t rail journeys better for the environment than cars or air travel? Not when it’s high speed. Not when the DfT assume twice as many brand new journeys on HS2 as people switching from cars and air. And especially not if freed up domestic air slots are taken by more polluting long haul flights.

So what’s the right thing to do? Instead of wasting £33bn on HS2, let’s invest in things that will give us a real rate of return. £33bn would pay for a truly integrated transport network with enough left over to propel the country into the broadband fast lane. A programme for real growth and jobs that provides a premium rather than requires a subsidy.

It’s time to think again.

* See our review of the current Business Case at: www.hs2actionalliance.org/index.php

“We’re going to listen, we’re going to change it,

we’re going to get it right.”


CORRIDORS:

Sustainable transport in reverse Maria Eagle,Shadow Secretary of State for Transport

In tough times, the cost of getting from A to B matters even more than usual to struggling households. We can all extol the virtues of picking the mode of transport with the least

impact on the environment but, for most people, affordability will be decisive.

Yet, just when households are already facing a real cost of living crisis, the Government is driving up the cost of public transport. At the same time, the efforts on decarbonisation have stalled. As a result, the progress that has been made in reducing the contribution of transport to climate change is being put at risk.

It is right to urge people to consider alternatives to the car where it is possible to do so, but that requires alternatives to exist. However, in communities up and down the country, local bus services are being reduced or disappearing altogether.

One in five supported bus services has already been cut. Many of the bus services that remain have experienced inflation-busting increases in fares. That is the direct consequence of decisions taken by Ministers to cut more than half a billion pounds from support for bus services, including cutting 26 per cent from the funding that goes to councils to support local transport and 20 per cent from the subsidies that go direct to bus companies. Those cuts will inevitably push more people back into their cars. For the very many people without access to a car, particularly older people, those out of work or on low income, the consequence is increased social and economic isolation.

The cost of travelling by rail is being hiked by the Government at an even more dramatic rate. In response to the

growing pressures on household budgets, Labour banned train companies from increasing fares by more than a strict limit of just one per cent above inflation.

One of the first acts of the new Coalition was to lift the cap to three per cent above inflation but also give back to train companies the right to add up to another five per cent on top on some routes. Ministers claim that those price rises are needed to fund investment, yet the National Audit Office found that the Department for Transport could not provide evidence that they did not just lead to higher profits for the private train companies. Commuters are therefore facing annual ticket price rises of up to 11 per cent, not just for one year but for three years in a row.

Some will find they are paying a third more for their season ticket by the time of the next election. Increasingly getting to work by train is the single largest household expense, more than the cost of the monthly mortgage or rent payment. It will not be surprising if the consequence is people being driven off the rails and back onto the road, increasing not just congestion but emissions.

As well as hiking the costs of public transport, the focus on getting people cycling and walking has been lost. The Local Sustainable Transport Fund is a good initiative, but it is a sticking plaster over the hole that has been left by other cuts. The entire value of the fund is £560million across five years to cover a wide range of schemes, compared to the £80million committed to cycling every year through the now-abolished Cycling England. There has been no continuation or rolling out of the Cycling Towns and Cities projects funded by Labour.

Public transport, cycling and walking will never be a substitute for every private car journey, particularly in rural areas. That’s why Labour in government kick-started investment in the transition to electric and hybrid vehicles.

That drive has stalled since the election and the Government has abandoned the commitment to support the creation of a charging network that is vital to build confidence in the market for electric vehicles. This should be one of the top priorities of the Department for Transport, yet Ministers are silent on the issue and there is no evidence it is seen any longer as a priority.

Transport remains a major contributor to climate change and the Government should be setting out and implementing a coherent strategy for sustainable transport, including both ensuring public transport is an affordable and accessible alternative to the car alongside decarbonisation.

Sadly, under this Government, the progress that was being made on both has gone into reverse.

“Commuters are facing annual ticket price rises

of up to 11 per cent”


Sustainable travel requires bold effortsLouise Ellman, Chair of the Transport Select Committee

Climate change is one of the most significant issues we face today. The Government must implement policies that will reduce our carbon emissions and encourage sustainable lifestyles. The UK is

committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, in accordance with the Climate Change Act 2008.

In addition, the UK has a role in helping secure agreement to tackle climate change on an international level. Emissions from domestic transport account for 20 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and 24 per cent of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions. That means that significant efforts to decarbonise the transport sector will be required if the Government is to make the necessary reductions. Reducing our dependency on carbon will require a shift from our current transport models and investment in new approaches.

Shortly after taking office, the Prime Minister promised that this Government would be the greenest government ever. The Coalition Agreement called for urgent action to tackle climate change. It committed the Government to greening the transport sector by ensuring tough emissions standards for vehicles, supporting new technologies, mandating a national recharging network for plug-in-vehicles, recognising the benefits of low carbon projects in the planning process, supporting sustainable travel projects and promoting walking and cycling. Those are all laudable goals. In its most recent update on progress towards achieving carbon reduction goals, however, the Committee on Climate Change concluded that progress in implementing carbon reduction measures was modest and stronger performance was needed if Government was to achieve its goals.

The Transport Select Committee has looked at a number of aspects of the Government’s approach to sustainable travel.

We recently inquired into Government policy on low carbon vehicles. As part of that inquiry we explored issues surrounding the provision of charging infrastructure and the market for these vehicles. The Committee on Climate Change supports widespread uptake of electric vehicles. We have been questioning academics, industry and policy-makers on that issue. I am concerned that uptake remains low, despite the provision of financial incentives.

We have looked at the provision of cycle infrastructure as part of our road safety inquiry. We were concerned about the number of cycle casualties, particularly as this is an increasingly popular mode of transport. Steps should be taken to provide a safe environment to encourage more people to walk or cycle. We also held a seminar on sustainable transport, which looked at biofuels, low carbon vehicles and behaviour change. Cutting carbon and fostering a more sustainable travel environment requires coordinated action across Whitehall and engagement with local authorities and community groups.

During our programme of work, we have heard about links between reducing carbon emissions from transport and a number of departmental agendas, including health, energy and climate change and communities and local government. For example, encouraging walking and cycling as sustainable forms of transport links to the Government’s public health agenda and some public health funding will be available for road safety initiatives so that the public can feel safe switching to these modes of transport. For low carbon vehicles to contribute meaningfully to reducing the UK’s carbon emissions, they will need to be powered by electricity from an efficient grid that uses low-carbon energy sources. DECC’s work to decarbonise the electricity grid is therefore important to ensure the effectiveness of these measures. Providing infrastructure for sustainable modes of travel such as cycling will fall to local authorities. It is important that the sustainability agenda is prioritised at a local level. The National Policy Planning Framework states that planning should make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking or cycling and that it should focus development in sustainable locations. That does not, however, guarantee results, as decisions are devolved to the local level.

Dealing with a problem on the scale of climate change requires joined up Government and strong leadership. Although ministers make positive statements, Government action is almost invariably too limited to meet the commitments ministers make.

Joined-up working between departments is one area in particular where action seems to lag a long way behind intention. It would be easy to sideline the sustainability agenda, particularly in these times of economic austerity, but the long-term cost would be catastrophic. We expect – and need – the Government to step up and respond to the climate change challenge.

“Government action is almost invariably too limited to meet the

commitments ministers make”


CORRIDORS:

Building an effective and intelligent youth justice system Crispin Blunt,Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice

I believe that we have already made good progress towards achieving an effective and intelligent youth justice system, but I am determined to deliver more. We must ensure offences are

resolved effectively, victims and communities are given greater priority, and that young criminals are appropriately punished but more effectively rehabilitated. Our reforms must also recognise the constraints on public finances, which provide even greater urgency to maximising the impact of our resources and reducing bureaucracy.

The most efficient solutions can be found at a local level. We must allow flexibility and empower experienced professionals to find innovative solutions to tackle offending. I have already halved the number of performance indicators applying to the youth justice system, giving greater freedom for those on the frontline to do their job.

Wherever possible we want to prevent young people entering the system in the first place. Early identification, support and intervention are essential for an intelligent approach to youth offending. To make this a reality we must take a more joined-up approach that crosses policy boundaries in central government and operational boundaries between local agency services. For example, we know we must tackle the full range of issues faced by young offenders and their families.

My department is working with others in Whitehall to turn around the lives of 120,000 troubled families by 2015. Youth Offending Teams, themselves an embodiment of a genuine multi-agency approach, are taking the programme forward at a local level. The more we can do to stop problems developing early on the better; a strategy that not only makes economic sense but

prevents harm to victims and young people alike.

This is why we are giving local authorities greater financial responsibility for the cost of secure remands and have initiated four pilot ‘Youth Custody Pathfinder’ programmes, providing local authorities with an incentive to intervene early, cut reoffending and divert young people away from custody. Each Pathfinder area has received upfront investment and has flexibility in delivering results.

Should areas fail to meet these aims they will pay back a proportion of their funding. This payment by results will drive innovation and reduce reoffending, but the taxpayer will only pay for programmes that work.

Victims of crime have a right to expect more than a system that punishes, but one striving to repair harm and prevent future crimes. It is crucial that our approach to young offenders sees issues through to the end and does not simply stop on leaving custody or completing a court order. We must provide the right support to ensure appropriate housing, education, training or employment opportunities are in place to provide stability with the aim of reducing reoffending.

I am a supporter of restorative justice, which offers an opportunity to assist offender rehabilitation but also gives victims a greater stake in the resolution of offences. In many areas restorative justice is already an integral part of tackling crime. Restorative justice typifies the shift from a centralised top-down approach as it is most effective when based on how victims, practitioners and communities want to respond to crime in their area.

Analysis conducted by my department has shown that restorative justice can result in reducing the frequency of reoffending and higher victim satisfaction. It is already an established feature of youth justice, with mandated conferencing in Northern Ireland and part of referral panels in England and Wales. I believe it can also greatly benefit adults, but it is another area where youth justice holds lessons for the whole justice system.

Restorative Justice is part of the responsibility agenda. Errant youths and those responsible for them must be accountable for their actions, the necessary reparation and future actions to address the cause of the offending behaviour.

By the time most of these children are in the clutches of the justice system the position is serious and their future prospects perilous. Inculcating a culture of responsibility for offenders-directly to victims as individuals, to society as a whole and to themselves for a future free from the oversight of the Criminal Justice system-is the change in approach we wish to see.

“We must allow flexibility and empower experienced

professionals to find innovative solutions to

tackle offending”

• •••• ••

About this collection

The Emerald Health & Social Care journal collection offers suggestions for improving practice and considers the social impact of research and policy. The collection comprises 31 journals:Advances in Dual DiagnosisAdvances in Mental Health & Intellectual

DisabilitiesBritish Journal of Forensic PracticeClinical GovernanceDrugs and Alcohol TodayEthnicity and Inequalities in Health and

Social CareHousing, Care and SupportInternational Journal of Health Care Quality

AssuranceInternational Journal of Migration, Health and

Social CareInternational Journal of Prisoner HealthInternational Journal of Workplace Health

ManagementJournal of Adult Protection

ResearchJournal of Assistive Technologies

Journal of Children's ServicesJournal of Criminal PsychologyJournal of Health Organization and

ManagementJournal of Integrated CareJournal of Learning Disabilities and

Offending BehaviourJournal of Mental Health Training, Education

and PracticeJournal of Public Mental HealthLeadership in Health ServicesMental Health and Social InclusionMental Health Review JournalNutrition & Food ScienceQuality in Ageing and Older AdultsSafer CommunitiesSocial Care and NeurodisabilityTherapeutic CommunitiesTizard Learning Disability ReviewWorking with Older People

eJournalsHealth & Social Care

Get a free content trial of this collection:Call: +44 (0)1274 515616E-mail: [email protected]

Subscription informationOur flexible subscription options give you a choice of subscribing to:

saving of over 35%

Groups).

For more information Call: +44 (0)1274 515616E-mail: [email protected]: www.emeraldinsight.com/tk/hsc001

Recent coverage

These journals provide evidence-based coverage of highly topical issues of relevance to the whole spectrum of health and social care professionals. Some recent highlights include:

Safer Communities which analyzes the social disorder of the 2011 English riots

integration efforts in the NHS in Journal of Integrated Care

Health & Social Care Billimpact of the Human Rights Act on minority, ethnic users of health and

social care services in Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Careimproving access to mental health care provision for service users with

complex needs in Advances in Dual Diagnosisbinge drinking in Ibiza in Drugs and Alcohol Today

wellbeing of General Practitioners in Journal of Public Mental Health.

Vital knowledge covering all aspects of research, management and practice

Adult ProtectionDrugs and Alcohol Today


Parity between mental and physical health services Paul Burstow,Liberal Democrat MP for Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park

The Coalition’s position on mental health can be summed up simply – No Health Without Mental Health.

It is on the cover of our mental health strategy - a clear commitment to ensuring mental health has the same priority as physical health, that runs right through the strategy and implementation plan. And it is an approach that we enshrined in law through the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

With at least a quarter of us likely to experience mental health problems, it must not be left to languish as a Cinderella service. In the past, this area of medicine has too often been overlooked, but we cannot afford to ignore it any longer - mental health issues cost the economy around £105.2 billion each year, with this figure expected to double in the next 20 years.

And in 2010/11, the NHS spent £11.91 billion on mental health disorders – so whichever way you cut it these figures represent a startling amount, and this is before you even try to factor in the human cost.

It is a challenge for all of us. For our society as a whole.

The Coalition Government has already taken some big steps to tackle mental illness and promote mental health, with more investment in services, treatment and support.

For example, in the last two years the number of people entering Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services has almost tripled, from 182,000 in 2009/10 to 528,000 in 2011/12. This year alone we will spend £32 million to train new therapists to meet that demand and over four years, the total investment will be more than £400 million.

In addition to the roll-out of adult services, we have started from scratch a stand-alone IAPT programme for children and young people – which is vital when you consider half of those with lifetime mental health problems experience symptoms by the age of 14. We have made astonishing progress in 18 months, already improving access to talking therapies for around a third of 0-19 year olds.

At the time of writing this article, we are finalising our Suicide Prevention Strategy. It sets out to reduce the already falling suicide rate and provide better support and information to those bereaved or otherwise affected by a suicide. The Strategy recognises that to prevent suicide effectively, a wide range of partner agencies, organisations and sectors need to have their say and lend their expertise.

On top of that, we have joined forces with Comic Relief to help tackle mental health stigma, with funding of up to £16 million over the next four years for the leading stigma and anti-discrimination campaign Time to Change, run by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness. The second phase of that programme is focussing on children and young people.

The IAPT programme, the Suicide Prevention Strategy and Time to Change will all help to ensure that mental health is a priority across services and each will tackle mental illness and support service providers on the frontline.

Our new implementation framework for the mental health strategy No Health Without Mental Health, sets out specific ways we will turn our ambition into real change on the ground.

At the strategy’s core are the dual aims of better mental health for all; and that more people with mental health problems will recover. Although it was well received, there was a clear consensus that further work was needed to translate it into definitive action.

The framework has been co-produced with five national mental health organisations – Mind, Rethink Mental Illness, NHS Confederation mental health network, Turning Point and the Centre for Mental Health – and as a result it is a stronger, more credible document.

It is the ‘excuse remover’, setting out what local organisations can do to provide better prevention, treatment and support for those people with mental health issues, ensuring that mental health is everyone’s business. It also outlines what national organisations are doing to help, and how progress will be measured and reported. It is addressed to a full range of organisations able to improve mental health – from clinical commissioning groups to schools and employers – and has a particular focus on the groups that can make the greatest difference. This article was written when Paul Burstow was Minister for Social Care Services

“ It is a challenge for all of us. For our society as a

whole”

Supporting individuals with a mentalhealth condition to remain in work

The Workplace MentalHealth Support Serviceis funded by Governmentand available for individualswith a mental healthcondition who are facingdifficulties in doing their job,or are absent from work asa result of their condition.**The aim of the service is tosupport people to takecontrol of their condition inthe workplace and remainpositive and productivein their role. To helpindividuals to lead fulland independent lives,our service provides:

• Tailored support for sixmonths from fully trainedprofessionals

• Help to identifysuccessful copingstrategies

• Advice on workplaceadjustments

• Help for employersto understand whatsupport they can provide(with the individual’spermission).

Case study:Julie was diagnosed with stress,anxiety and depression. She wasat risk of losing her job as aresult.Remploy supported Julie by;identifying coping strategies tohelp her manage her conditionsat work, providing confidence andself-esteem boosters, workingwith her employer to putadjustments in place andsignposting her to supportgroups.The support has helped Julie toovercome her difficulties at work.She is feeling much moreconfident, her performance hasimproved and she is enjoyinggoing to work each day.

Individuals must self-refer to this service,which is delivered by Remploy

in partnership with Access to Work;a Jobcentre Plus scheme.

For further information on this service,please contact us on:Tel: 0845 146 0501Email: [email protected]

Ref. 1162

www.remploy.co.uk/mentalhealth

Only 20% of people with severe mental health problems and 50% of thosewith less serious problems are in paid employment, yet 80% want to work*…With a little extra support, we are proving that they can!

“Your help has been alife-line. The issues at workwith how quickly I wasworking and what was leftto do have been resolved.I am much more positiveabout work,” said Julie.

Come and see us at our stand at theGovKnow Mental Health Conferencein London on 16 October 2012!

* Source: Shift.org - 2004 ** Eligibility criteria apply

The recent Social Care White Paper from the Westminster Government recognises that loneliness and social isolation remain a huge problem that society has failed to tackle. The Paper cites that more than two million people over the age of 65 in the UK report feeling trapped at home or feeling lonely, potentially leading to poor physical and mental health, including depression.

The Westminster Government concedes that social isolation is not something that they can tackle on their own. Effective action will require state services and the voluntary sector to work closely together. This is a view supported by the Campaign To End Loneliness, who have shown that loneliness has a similar impact on mortality as smoking, and is worse for us than obesity. Loneliness also has significant links to hypertension, depression, and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by 50% - all of which have financial implications for our health and social care systems.

The need for reform of adult social care is not in dispute. The introduction, for example, of a duty on local authorities to commission and provide preventive services, which will form part of the draft Care and Support Bill, is an important step forward. The White Paper and the draft Bill provide a once in a generation opportunity to begin to address the shortcomings of the current system. However there are simpler actions that can be implemented now.

Services such as befriending, community transport and home-from-hospital support are often all it takes

to make the difference between an older person leaving hospital successfully or being readmitted within a short space of time. They make the difference between depression/isolation and leading a healthier, involved life.

By mobilising a volunteer army to provide the kind of preventative services and early interventions that help older people stay happy and independent in their own homes, we can radically reduce the burden on the NHS and have a positive impact on older people’s well-being.

This is why WRVS is calling for a cohesive, coherent plan of action that brings corporate and volunteer organisations together to provide practical solutions to caring for older people.

Loneliness - as bad for us as smoking

To find out more about how WRVS is already working in partnership with local authorities and health trusts to achieve these aims, please contact Zena Cairns, Head of Business Development on 07714 898 565 or visit wrvs.org.uk/get-involved/work-in-partnership

WRV

S, B

eck

Cou

rt, C

ardi

ff G

ate

Busi

ness

Par

k, C

ardi

ff C

F23

8RP

Tel

029

20 7

39 0

00 F

ax 0

2920

73

9 11

1 R

egis

tere

d ch

arity

101

5988

& S

C03

8924

©W

RVS

2012

Loneliness has a similar impact on mortality as smoking, and is worse for us than obesity.

Politics first advertorial_v1.indd 1 30/08/2012 16:12


CORRIDORS:

Securing pensions for today and tomorrow Steve Webb,Minister for Pensions

With the Government looking to save over £80 billion per year in public spending, no group in society is going to be unaffected. But in line with the Coalition

Agreement, the Government has taken the costly decision to protect the basic state pension. Indeed, not only has the pension been protected, it will be progressively improved through the ‘triple lock’ promise to raise the pension every year by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices, with a minimum increase of 2.5 per cent.

So why is that policy such a priority for the Coalition, especially at a time when money is so tight?

To understand why we need to prioritise the basic state pension, you need to look back over the last three decades.

Back in 1980, Margaret Thatcher ‘broke the earnings link’ with the basic state pension. In the late 1970s, the pension had kept up with the growth in average earnings, which meant that pensioners would no longer fall behind the living standards of the working age population. But Mrs Thatcher decided that that was too expensive, and a policy of increasing pensions only in line with inflation was introduced that was to last under successive Conservative and Labour governments for the following 30 years.

The effect of that policy on the value of the pension was devastating. Back in 1980, the basic state pension stood at roughly a quarter of national average earnings. By the time of the 2010 election, it had fallen to nearer one sixth. The whole point of pensions is to help you maintain your standard of living when you no longer have a wage. If the value of the pension becomes disconnected from the value of average wages, it ceases to do its job properly.

That decline in the value of the pension meant that people were at risk of falling below the poverty line if they did not have other pension savings on top of the basic state pension. As a result, successive governments put more and more money into the means-tested side of retirement provision – first Income Support, then the ‘Minimum Income Guarantee’ and then Pension Credit. Each scheme was more generous but also much more complicated than the one that it replaced.

On the face of it, focusing money on poorer pensioners would seem to make sense. But that policy has two fundamental flaws. The first is that means-testing is not very effective at reaching those most in need. Some means-tested benefits for pensioners, such as the savings credit, reach less than half of those who are entitled. So although in theory no pensioner need live below a certain minimum level, in reality many hundreds of thousands do so, simply because they fail to get what they are entitled to.

A second and more fundamental problem with mass means-testing is that it destroys the reward for saving. If saving a small amount through a pension or a savings account simply means you are deprived of the means-tested benefits you would have got anyway, why would anyone bother to save? In some cases people’s savings were being offset pound-for-pound by reductions in means-tested benefits, and many people who had saved were bitter when they realised that they might as well have not bothered.

That is why reversing the long-term decline of the state pension has been a priority for the Coalition. This April saw the biggest cash increase ever in the value of the basic pension, and it is already a higher share of national average earnings than at any time since before 1997.

However, that does not mean that pensioners have been exempt from tough choices on public spending. The Government has scaled back the complex ‘savings credit’, reducing planned spending on means-tested benefits for pensioners. Perhaps more importantly, many pensioners depend heavily on local authority services which have had to be limited in response to the general squeeze on public spending. So it would be wrong to suggest that pensioners have somehow been ring-fenced from the squeeze.

But what the Government has done is to make its priority clear. A decent state pension for today’s pensioners as well as pension reform for the next generation to make sure that saving pays.

Even at a time of austerity it is possible to do good things in priority areas, and I believe our commitment to the state pension is an example of that principle.

“This April saw the biggest cash increase ever

in the value of the basic pension”

ADVERTORIAL

It’s not always easy to extract the reality from stories around pensions in the public sector, but it would be fair to say there is a consensus that

reform is needed to ensure they continue to provide affordable and sustainable pensions in the future.

There will undoubtedly be changes to contribution rates, retirement ages and benefits levels which will affect members of these schemes in different ways

The first misconception has been that public sector pensions are “gold plated”. The Lord Hutton report found that the average public sector pension in 2009/10 was just £4,052. This myth has had a sig-nificant amount of air time and column inches in the past and has not helped to generate open and hon-est debate on the need for reform. There does now though appear to be an understanding that the vast majority of public sector employees do not benefit to such an extent which can only help progress the changes.

Another misconception is that there is such a thing as a single public sector pension scheme. There are in fact many schemes, some covering pro-fessions – such as teachers – and some run by employers, such as the individual local authority pension schemes. Local Authority schemes are also funded schemes which differentiate them form the other ‘pay as you go schemes’ in the public sector.

Each scheme has now submitted its preferred design, taking account of the cost envelope, to the government and negotiations continue as to the precise detail to be introduced from 2015, although LGPS reform is planned to be in place by 2014.

These changes will lead to additional complexity for those who administer the scheme given the ‘pro-tected’ status of benefits already accrued.

The administrative complexity should not be under-estimated and there will be a real need for expert and competent pension administrators to ensure

there are high standards of record keeping and ef-fective systems which can provide comprehensive and accurate information.

There is a need for effective communication to members so that the changes are properly under-stood. For instance the move from a final salary scheme to a career average one will affect each member differently. If communication is poor or muddled there is a danger of people believing the ‘pay more’, ‘work longer’ ‘get less’ philosophy. This could lead to members opting out of schemes in the future if it is thought they no longer represent good value. The news that staff who transfer under ‘Fair Deal’ will continue to have access to public service pension schemes will help maintain membership levels.

Getting the message out that a public service pen-sion is a tax efficient way of saving, with life cover included as well as a significant contribution from their employer is becoming ever more important. The London Pensions Fund Authority is harness-ing social media such as Twitter and You Tube to explain the changes and to encourage people to join and remain in the schemes.

Whether efficiencies, improved access to informa-tion and first class communication can be achieved through increased co-operation or whether there is case for merging the administrative functions in the LGPS into regional bodies is an issue that is currently up for debate. The possible benefits of amalgamating the pension funds themselves to re-duce management charges and ensure governance of the scheme as a whole is at the same high levels as the best funds currently achieve is also under discussion.

For public sector schemes and their members there are challenging times ahead. The early signs are encouraging as all parties are committed to finding solutions that best meet the priorities identified by Lord Hutton.

By Susan Martin, Deputy Chief Executive of the London Pensions Fund Authority, a leader in public sector third party pension administration, consultancy services and training. Susan is also a Board Member and Pensions Lead for PPMA the voice of public sector HR.

What’s the reality of Public sector pension reform?


CORRIDORS:

Forging innovation between universities and industry David Willetts,Minister of State for Universities & Science

Universities’ role in innovation is vital. Their fundamental purpose is as creators and transmitters of knowledge, but they also link businesses with the research base and with

the wider innovation ecosystem. We are promoting that crucial role.

There are about 1.7 million academic articles published around the world, of which about 120,000 come from UK research. The Government believes that published research material which has been publicly financed should be publicly accessible. We recently announced how businesses and the public will get easier access to that, keeping the UK at the forefront of global research to drive innovation and growth.

The circulation of highly skilled people is also key to promoting innovation between academia and industry. We are broadening the training of researchers so they have more opportunities than ever before to experience the world of business. The Research Councils have increased their investment in collaborative training, which involves private, public or charity research, partners by a fifth.

The Government is investing £200million in a network of Catapult Centres to help bridge the gap between university research and industry. Each will focus on a specific technology where there is a potentially large global market and a significant UK capability such as such as cell therapy, the connected digital economy and off-shore renewable energy. The first Catapult, in high value manufacturing, opened for business in October 2011, and six others in development will open in 2013.

Universities and industry working together are making a substantial contribution to the UK’s economic growth. The latest analysis shows that external income to the higher education sector from business and other users has continued to increase, despite the challenging economic environment, to over £3.3 billion. Universities’ income from contract research has grown by over 50 per cent from £688 million in 2003-04 to over £1 billion in 2010-11. They also help businesses by providing high-tech, cutting-edge equipment – from digital media facilities to wind tunnels – and received £129 million in 2010-11 from business and other users for the use of facilities and equipment.

Universities are also stepping up to support businesses to grow in their local regions. Close to my constituency Havant, the University of Portsmouth is a key partner in “Bridging the Gap”, a new fund for SMEs and start-up businesses in the Portsmouth, Gosport and Havant areas. The Bridging the Gap scheme will award grant funding to entrepreneurs and SMEs with the best new business and growth proposals, with the university providing mentoring, business support and networking opportunities. Funded from the Government’s Regional Growth Fund, the fund will lever in over £1 million additional private sector investment to the regional economy.

Furthermore, universities are finding new and innovative ways to work together with industry. The N8 Research Partnership’s new Industry Innovation Forum brings together a powerful network of research intensive universities in the North of England, SMEs and global firms involved in research and development. It currently has two centres that work with business, one on regenerative medicine and the other on nanotechnology. Both are focussed on bringing research through to market, and between them they have generated over £20 million of research income since 2007 and worked with over 130 businesses.

Another great example is the new centre for engineering focusing on interdisciplinary research relevant to the construction industry, established by Laing O’Rourke and the University of Oxford. The centre will provide a dynamic environment, unburdened by the usual corporate distractions that exist in large organisations, providing the brightest engineering minds with the freedom to explore and innovate for the benefit of our industry and society at large.

Global firms are also choosing to work, collaborate and co-locate with UK universities because of our research excellence. Recently, BP, after a global search for a location for its new $100 million international research centre, chose the University of Manchester because of its world-leading capabilities and facilities in advanced materials.

“Universities and industry working together are making a substantial

contribution to the UK’s economic growth”


Partnering Britain in the world Dr Jo Beall, Director of Education and Society at the British Council

Governments have long used their attractiveness to international students and researchers as a measure of a nation’s global standing but, in the 21st century, it is global

knowledge partnerships that matter.

A truly effective and efficient knowledge economy that produces the innovation, growth and social wellbeing we need cannot be simply regional or national. So whilst attracting the best international talent should continue to be a priority for the UK, the British Council believes that the UK must place itself in the heart of the new global knowledge economy, which means equipping our people and institutions with the right skills, and connecting them to the best partnerships and networks in the world in which to deploy them.

The British Council’s recent research on the future of international tertiary education, “The shape of things to come”, highlights a very different global landscape from 2020; one in which the rapidly emerging economies of the East and South are replacing the West’s dominance of the world’s research and innovation base. How can the UK compete in this new landscape? We believe that the UK must move from being simply a destination of choice for ambitious students, to the partner of choice for ambitious governments, trans-national businesses, and research institutions.

The British Council is already supporting that move. Our convening power has meant that “Going Global”, our annual international tertiary education conference since 2004, has developed in to the world’s biggest gathering of the sector’s leaders. This March, over 1,300 Ministers, Vice-Chancellors and business leaders came to London, from over eighty countries. In March 2013, we are taking the UK to the world, hosting the

conference in Dubai, to debate the theme: “Global education: knowledge-based economies for 21st century nations”.

The conference will focus on how tertiary education systems can produce cutting edge research and skilled knowledge workers, both fit for purpose in a globalised world. To be at the heart of this ambition, the UK must understand the policies needed to provide world-class research and innovation partnerships; the role in these of businesses and investors; and the value of collaboration across national boundaries to support major innovation and competent knowledge workers.

Producing timely and topical research is crucial if we are to answer these questions. Last December, the British Council asked the UK’s business leaders what skills the next generation needed if the UK was to continue to compete in the global economy. The findings suggested that our next generation was ill-equipped in both attitude and opportunity to seize global opportunities. Subsequently, we have commissioned fresh research on the topic across ten more countries, to investigate whether the scenario in the UK is unique, or similarities exist in other major economies around the world.

The results will be launched at “Going Global” in 2013. The UK must address that issue because, as the “Shape of things to come” research revealed this year, the boom in international student recruitment is over. So given that our employers see it as crucial for young British students to gain international skills, with this avenue diminishing, what other ways can the UK grow in internationalising and connecting our sector?

The British Council is committed to producing knowledge economy partnerships that connect the UK’s expertise with emerging markets. That work is forging strong and sustainable education and research partnerships for the UK in India, China, East Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. For example, in Guangzhou, China, we have linked the UK’s industrial design education sector with Chinese businesses, universities and government efforts to support the upcycling of industrial by-products, a huge challenge for ‘the factory of the world’.

The British Council is one of a number of organisations working to position the UK and the British economy abroad, and plays a vital role in working with young people and building long-term relationships and connections. The partnership with Guangzhou is a prime example of how the UK’s traditional areas of strength can be used innovatively and creatively with emerging markets to create new ideas, partnerships, trust and economic opportunity. The British Council’s unrivalled ability to connect, convene and help leverage sustained benefits for the UK is best expressed, I believe, through links into new horizons for young people in the 21st century global knowledge economy.

“Producing timely and topical research is crucial”

0845 647 7000

[email protected]

@GovKnow

government-knowledge.com

Government Knowledge o�ers a unique work based learning programme accredited by the University of Chester. These quali�cations lead to a full Master’s Degree or Higher Education Certi�cate (worth 120 academic credits) in Public Services Management.

government-knowledge.com

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

GK_HalfA4_editorial_chester_print.pdf 1 24/08/2012 16:46

POLITICSF I R S TPolitics First... A magazine with a difference

MARTIN McGUINNESS: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

JON CRAIG ASSESSES THE SNP’S LEADER

KEITH VAZ LOOKS AT THE HOME OFFICE

CRISPIN BLUNT ON THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM

BARONESS HARRIS DISCUSSES POLICE CHALLENGES

DAVID WILLETTS ON CHANGES TO HIGHER EDUCATION

LORD BEECHAM WARNS AGAINST CUTS TO LEGAL AID

VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 6 £3.99

www.politicsfirst.o

rg.uk

APRIL 2012

BUDGETING FOR

THE ECONOMY

RACHEL REEVES,

LEN McCLUSKEY,

BRITISH BANKERS’ ASSOCIATION,

FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES

AND ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE

A grave or growth

case?

POLITICS

F I R S T

PETER RIDDELL: EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

BARONESS NEWLOVE ON HOW TO TACKLE BINGE DRINKING

LUCIANA BERGER EXAMINES THE GREEN DEAL

DON FOSTER DISCUSSES TAX EVASION

PRESIDENT CHRISTOFIAS ON THE CYPRUS EU PRESIDENCY

SIR PAUL NURSE EXPLORES THE MARVEL OF SCIENCE

MARK JONES LOOKS AT THE BADGER CULL

VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 7 £3.99 www.politicsfi rst.org.uk

VALUE FOR MONEYHow can Whitehall deliver efficiently to the taxpayer?FRANCIS MAUDE, JON TRICKETT, MARGARET HODGE, MARK SERWOTKA AND LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

POLITICSF I R S T

JUNE 2012

LEGAL AID REFORM: KENNETH CLARKE, SADIQ KHAN, LORD CARLILE, DES HUDSON AND MICHAEL MANSFIELD QC

“First for politics and best for politics”

Jon Craig, Chief Political Correspondent,

Sky News

Contact: Marcus Papadopoulos, Publisher/[email protected],07972374529,www.politicsfirst.org.uk


Enabling Britain to compete globally John Hayes, Minister of State for Further Education, Skill and Lifelong Learning

Danny Boyle and the organisers of the Olympic opening ceremony had a near impossible task on their hands: how to represent British society in a way that had most resonance

and meaning? At the heart of the ceremony they conceived was a vision of a country transformed by technical innovation.

Higher skills are vital to the kind of economy we want to build for the future. As Lord Leitch and others have argued, the higher the skills levels in the economy, the more they add to the value of products and services. And research has shown that having a good stock of skills helps businesses move to higher value product strategies when the opportunities emerge.

There are many things that Government can do, and that this Government is doing, to build the world class skills Britain needs to compete. The first is to continue and to intensify our efforts to re-establish apprenticeships as the primary form of practical training. This Government has created more apprenticeships than modern Britain has ever seen. And this growth is not just in the traditional craft sectors but in the new crafts, too – in advanced engineering; IT; the creative industries; and in financial services.

Secondly, the vocational route must be a highway, not a cul-de-sac. Alison Wolf’s astute report into vocational education concludes that, sadly, under the system the current Government inherited, for many young people that is far from the case; too many students are on programmes that score well on league tables but do not result in higher education or stable paid employment. So, we are ensuring that those qualifications that do not provide for progression no longer count towards the measurement of school performance.

Potential learners must also know that an apprenticeship is a route to high-level skills. That is why I am working to create a much clearer

route of progression in the apprenticeship system. Furthermore, we are introducing 25,000 Higher Apprenticeships, up to degree level, which will help redefine our understanding of higher learning.

Thirdly, I want to see those who take the practical path enjoy symbols of status as seductive as those who take the academic one. That is why we are publishing the achievements of high level apprentices, and have introduced award ceremonies. And a new scheme has been launched that gives Apprentices access to the benefits of an NUS card.

But I want to go further. To harness the glories of our practical and technical accomplishments we must come together to create institutions that, as custodians of our past, can help us shape a confident future. We need to create what could best be described as ‘institutional anchors’ for our system of practical education – bringing together employers and employees in a shared understanding of technical accomplishment.

Fourthly, we must not forget the role that informal learning plays in teaching skills. Acquiring skills may make our lives more prosperous but it always makes our lives fuller. Learning for its own sake develops the personal skills and self-esteem that can help people onto the first step on the ladder towards structured learning and sustainable employment.

Informal learning often leads to other things, too – new friends, new leisure interests, community action, hobbies that become successful small businesses or volunteering that turns into job opportunities.

That is why at a time when fiscal retrenchment has been an urgent necessity, we have protected the budget for informal learning. I have also launched a review of the way learning is provided to ensure its effectiveness and that it reaches the most marginalised members of our society.

Finally, it is time to recognise the significance of the great unheralded triumph of our education system, FE Colleges. Their capacity to innovate was limited by the target driven, bureaucratic, micro-management which characterised the last Government’s approach to skills; by contrast, this Government is freeing Colleges to innovate and excel, and rolling back red tape and regulation.

There is certainly an economic imperative for the change I want to see. Valuing practical skills is vital to our future because we simply cannot afford to waste the talents of so many of our people. Training improves productivity and so increases competitiveness. But advancing a sound economic case alone is not enough. The social case for skills is critical to making society bigger: recognising the currency of craft matters because when each feel valued, all feel valued. Spreading opportunity builds community wellbeing and nourishes shared values.

“This Government has created more

apprenticeships than modern Britain has ever

seen”


CORRIDORS:

Education begins in the school building Lisa Nandy,Labour MP for Wigan

Up and down the country, schools have been waiting for several years to hear whether they have the go-ahead for desperately needed new buildings. This July, the lucky ones

finally got the green light.

The new programme replaces Labour’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme which was axed amid huge controversy two years ago. The Government’s argument, that BSF was needlessly expensive, is something the Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg has acknowledged, estimating that reducing bureaucracy could have saved an estimated £2 billion from the £55 billion programme.

Instead, the Government has chosen to go much further, cutting spending on the school capital programme at twice the Whitehall average. That is despite the fact that the need for new buildings is severe. The lack of primary places in particular is already a crisis in some parts of the country. By 2015, half a million new primary places will be needed, and yet Labour’s Primary Capital Programme has been axed.

At the same time, Ministers have found over £500 million to establish new free schools, a pet project of the Education Secretary. Those schools are largely based in areas where there is no need for new places, and they are, so far, focused on secondary rather than primary education. Their introduction and promotion has been extremely costly for the Department for Education, which, taken alongside the record cuts to spending on existing schools and the crisis in providing places, shows a shocking lack of commitment to children’s education.

It has taken Ministers two years to come up with an alternative to BSF, with announcements promised and delayed several times. It would have made good economic sense to prioritise

new schools, saving Councils the cost of repairs at a time when their budgets are under unprecedented pressure, and helping to stimulate the economy, particularly the construction industry which is in need of a boost.

More importantly, there is a moral case for prioritising new schools. Children only have one education, and they cannot wait. While Ministers have dithered, up and down the country, including in my own constituency, children are being taught in cramped, freezing and in some cases downright dangerous buildings, putting extra pressure on teachers and children alike.

In the final, eagerly anticipated announcement, only 261 schools got the go-ahead, less than half who applied to the scheme and a drop in the ocean compared to the predecessor BSF programme which planned to cover all secondary schools in England – around 15 times as many schools as will now get help.

The Government’s claim that the Priority Schools Programme represents good value for money also warrants scrutiny. To date, there has been no serious analysis of the cost of scrapping BSF, but cancellation charges and legal proceedings brought by a number of local authorities because of the chaotic way the programme was axed, are likely to have been significant. Ministers have consistently refused to provide me with any estimate of those costs so it is impossible to accurately calculate the true cost of replacing BSF with the new scheme.

The new scheme is 100 per cent Private Finance Initiative funded. Over the last few years, serious concerns have been raised about PFI schemes, because the public sector continues to bear the risk, and shoulders the costs when things go wrong. Recently, it was revealed that South London Healthcare, a merger of three hospital trusts, is spending 14 per cent of its income on repayments to a PFI. As such, it is far too early for Ministers to claim that the new scheme represents good value for the taxpayer.

Any real test of value for money is whether the new schools that are built are fit for purpose and to a high standard. For all its criticisms, the schools built under Building Schools for the Future were of an astonishingly high quality, providing sports, arts and science facilities that were first class. That investment sent a strong signal to children about their own worth to society. Given that many of those schools were purposefully built in areas with high levels of deprivation, for many of those children those new facilities were a revelation, and a source of renewed confidence and optimism.

This Government’s approach is to strip away minimum standards for new schools, while at the same time slashing spending. Achieving value for money is to be applauded, but devaluing this generation and their education is not.

“There is a moral case for prioritising new schools”


Maths-Whizz makes maths and fun add up for everyone.Maths-Whizz raises achievement levels of your students according to their individual ability.Maths-Whizz is a 21st century tool that delivers tangible results.

Maths-Whizz supports parental engagement.

“Maths-Whizz has invigorated our pupils and changed the way they view and learn mathematics. It has enabled children of all ages and abilities to succeed in maths...”Anthony Sharpe, Deputy Head Seven Mills School

Maths-WhizzThe guaranteed* way to happiness

in numbers for your school

®Maths-WhizzBrought to you by Whizz Education

Order your free school

trial at

whizz.com/teachers

Or call us on

0203 328 6564

* please see whizz.com/help

Morning plenary at 11.50am on Wednesday 19th September www.pearsoninpractice.com

“Finding and retaining talent through Apprenticeships”

a seminar by Rob Boucherat Policy & Funding Director at Pearson in Practice


CORRIDORS:

Leading fisheries to a sustainable future Richard Benyon,Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment and Fisheries

Over the last two and a half years as the UK Fisheries Minister, I have spent a lot of time on the coast, meeting the people who live and work there, and learning about

the challenges that face Britain’s fishermen.

When I talk to fishermen from all over the UK, I am been struck by their passion and commitment, driven by their love of the sea and the traditional culture they represent.

It is difficult to underplay the importance of fishing to so many of the UK’s coastal towns and villages, and the many thousands of jobs it supports in areas where other opportunities may be few and far between.

The main tool that exists to manage our fisheries, the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is widely regarded as not having worked. I would go further. In my view, it is broken beyond repair. It has failed our fishermen, it has failed the marine environment it is meant to protect, and it has failed our fish stocks. It needs radical reform, and my top priority since becoming Fisheries Minister has been to reform this failed policy and negotiate a new CFP which will deliver a prosperous fishing industry, sustainable fish stocks and a healthy marine environment.

The importance of the current negotiations must not be underestimated. Opportunities to reform the CFP come along only once in a decade.

And while the case for change is clearly overwhelming, there have been many differing views on how to solve the problems, including calls from some quarters for even more centralised intervention and controls.

It is my responsibility to make sure that the UK plays a lead

role in the negotiations and can successfully influence the crucial debates between European Fisheries Ministers and members of the European Parliament at a European level.

My efforts have focussed on addressing the three worst failings of the CFP: the disgraceful practice of throwing away dead fish (known as ‘discarding’); the inability to tackle over-fishing; and the unnecessary micro-management from Brussels.

UK leadership has meant that real progress on all of those issues has been made, reflected in agreement at Fisheries Council this June to a so called ‘General Approach’. That is the start of delivering the detailed reforms needed to address the CFP’s failings.

Rightly and understandably, the waste of fish caused by discarding has captured the attention of the British public. I want this practice to end as soon as possible.

Although not all Member States share my ambition for urgent action, I have secured agreement to end discarding, and a provisional timetable to do so. That is a major step in the right direction.

Over many years, ineffective, centralised micro-management of the CFP has seen the same rules applied from the sub-Arctic to the Mediterranean. That does not make sense.

Fish do not respect lines on maps and so cooperation between countries that fish the same sea basin will always be vital.

The reform the UK has been pushing for will see most of the decisions taken only by countries that fish in particular waters. That will have fishermen at the heart of the decision-making process so as to ensure that the decisions made are practical and not remote from the realities and complexities of our multi-species fisheries.

Last, but by no means least, over-fishing has been a central failing of the current CFP and I have been adamant that the reform includes a clear legal commitment, with deadlines, to fish sustainably (achieving “Maximum Sustainable Yield”), in line with international commitments. If it can be achieved, Fisheries Ministers will, for the first time, have made a legally binding commitment to setting fishing levels at sustainable levels.

Significant progress towards reform has been made. However, we must not be complacent and there is much work still to do.

I am now focussed on the European Parliament, who share responsibility with the Council, for reforming the CFP.

I will continue to work closely with MEPs to achieve the changes to the CFP that are so clearly needed to deliver our ambitions and provide a sustainable future for our fishing industry.

“The European Common Fisheries Policy is broken

beyond repair”


In Defence of the Hunting Act Mary Creagh, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

It is now seven years since Labour banned the hunting of wild mammals with dogs for sport in England and Wales. That followed a decision to end hunting in Scotland in 2002. The

argument was clearly won in Parliament and in the country. Yet the dinosaur wing of the Conservative Party cannot let it lie.

The Hunting Act (2004) was a landmark piece of legislation. In 1999, Labour Ministers commissioned the Burns Inquiry to undertake a comprehensive review of hunting and its impact on rural life, to ensure the broadest consensus for a ban. It concluded that “the economic effects of a ban on hunting were unlikely to be substantial.”

You can see that today in the many drag hunts and other recreational pursuits that have thrived since the ban. Those who were against the ban warned of dire consequences for the rural economy.

But the challenges facing rural communities – the cost of living crisis, cuts to bus services, high unemployment - come from the policies of this out of touch government, not the hunting ban.

Those who seek to repeal the ban say it is an ineffective law. Yet over two hundred people have been convicted of hunting offences since the Act, and one man has been convicted twice.

There have been convictions for hunting foxes and deer and for hare coursing. It is not a question of pest control, since only a small number of foxes killed each year were hunted with hounds, or of pitting town against countryside, since the majority of rural dwellers support the ban.

Despite the loud noises made by those who continue to hunt, the law is more popular today than it has ever been. Opinion

polls show that the vast majority of people do not want to see hunting wild mammals with dogs legalised.

This ongoing public support for the ban demonstrates the British sense of fair play and our concern for animal welfare. And in Parliament, even with a Tory-led coalition government, a majority of MPs do not want to see the ban repealed.

Alongside the hunting ban, the Labour Government banned fur farming and stopped the testing of cosmetics and tobacco on animals. We also passed the Animal Welfare Act (2006), the most wide ranging piece of animal welfare legislation for a century.

In contrast, this government has refused to ban wild animals in circuses, despite a unanimous vote in Parliament. It has cut funding for the police Wildlife Crime Unit and is pressing ahead with a badger cull in England this autumn, despite clear scientific evidence that it will reduce bovine TB by just 16 per cent in affected areas after nine years.

Where do we go from here?

The Tory-led Government has eroded the progress that Labour made in animal welfare. The Conservative manifesto declared the Hunting Act ‘unworkable’ and promised a free vote on the issue, with a government bill, over the lifetime of this Parliament.

David Cameron re-iterated that promise on Countryfile in January, calling the ban “bizarre” and saying it took “criminal law into an area of activity where it didn’t really belong.”

The Prime Minister is a supporter of hunting with dogs, although he has studiously avoided being photographed out riding, ever since the politically toxic photo of him on Raisa, Rebecca Brookes’ retired police horse came to light.

Talk of repealing the ban is a sop to his right wing supporters in the pro-hunting lobby. Privately however, he must wonder whether repeal is politically deliverable, given the new era of fractiousness with the Lib Dems after the debacle on Lords reform.

The Government really is out of touch if it believes that hunting is a priority for Parliament.

We need to concentrate on the real issues of creating green jobs and growth and getting the economy working for working people again.

Fox hunting and hare coursing have no place in modern Britain. The Hunting Act says a lot about the country we are. The fact that the Tories want to repeal it says a lot about them, and the country they wish to see.

“The Hunting Act says a lot about the country we

are”


CORRIDORS:

No backdoor privatisation for our forests Caroline Lucas,Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion

The Government performed a spectacular u-turn on selling off the Public Forest Estate, but private funding is now back on the agenda.

When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to put the Public Forest Estate up for sale last year, all hell broke loose. More than half a million people signed a 38 Degrees petition in protest, with criticism of the ill-considered proposals echoing across the political spectrum.

It really was a classic case of selling off the family silver, confirming many people’s worst fears about the consequences of the Conservative obsession with stripping the state of its assets.

Eventually, the Coalition caved in to public pressure and dropped the plans – a huge win for the energetic civil society campaign.

In the aftermath of that whole debacle, to try to salvage its reputation Defra set up the Independent Forestry Panel (IFP) to review the future of publicly-owned woodlands in England and Wales. In its final report this July, the Panel concluded that forests should be held in a trust for the public good and not sold off.

The Government’s official response is due next year, but the then Secretary of State Caroline Spelman admitted that she “agree(s) with the Panel that the Public Forest Estate should continue to benefit from public ownership.”

Like all of those who fought the plans for privatisation, I share those sentiments entirely and welcome her change of heart.

However, it is not all good news. While the IFP’s report offered some reassurance on enduring protection for our public woods and forests, its suggestion that the Government could consider “appropriate new funding streams” for the Estate should ring

alarm bells for anyone familiar with the language of the free market.

Responding to my recent Parliamentary Question on the issue, Defra minister Richard Benyon refused to rule out the use of private finance initiatives (PFI) in the management of the forests – adding to concerns that the debate has not moved on at all.

There can be little doubt that PFI for the PFE would represent privatisation by another means. Therefore the same questions remain: if private interests manage the PFE, what guarantees will there be to ensure public access or safeguard biodiversity?

Unless companies were to be allowed to maximise their profits from our woods and forests by charging directly for access and recreation opportunities, or adding insensitive and inappropriate developments, what private owner seeking a short-term return on their investment would take on such superficially unprofitable land?

Yet our public woods and forests represent a long-term national asset and a real bargain for the taxpayer, who currently makes up the shortfall of just £16 million annually to manage the entire estate of 1,500 woods and forests. That amounts to a little less than 30p a year for each of us.

In a survey carried out for the campaign group, Our Forests, nearly 90 per cent of respondents felt that the PFE merited on-going taxpayer support, with over 65 per cent prepared to contribute at least £5 annually.

With such a high level of public consent, why seek to introduce private finance into the equation? It is not as if PFI comes with an outstanding track record. In fact, in many instances, it has been nothing short of a disaster.

Recent analysis by the Guardian of Treasury figures relating to PFI show that the overall cost to the taxpayer of the 717 PFI contracts currently under way in the UK’s schools, hospitals and other public facilities will reach £301 billion by the time they have been paid off. That does not look like value for money to me.

Our forests and woods need a positive, long-term, sustainable approach to boost employment in forestry and forest crafts, protect and restore ancient woodlands, and plant more native and broadleaf woods. At present, it seems that only public ownership can offer that kind of vision – maintaining the crucial stakeholder relationship between the individual and our natural heritage.

With the fate of the PFE still hanging in the balance, we must guard against further insidious attempts by the Government to transfer this public asset to private ownership, and seek assurances that the much-loved and vital public resource of the Estate is secured for future generations.

“PFI for the PFE would represent privatisation by

another means”


Act now to safeguard England’s forests John Dye, President of the Timber Packaging & PalletConfederation (TIMCON)

This July, DEFRA published its report by the Independent Panel on Forestry, which recommends that the land cover of forests should be increased from 10 per cent of England’s total land

area to 15 per cent by 2060.

Although TIMCON would like to see that target achieved earlier than 2060, the report’s findings are an encouraging first step towards government recognising the sizeable contribution that forests and the UK’s forest-based industries make to our economy and environment.

Alongside our colleagues in the sustainable forest-based sectors, the timber pallet and packaging industry has been working hard to communicate the significant advantages of using wood.

Our key points are simple: timber is the most environmentally friendly material compared to alternative materials such as plastics - it is produced in sustainable, managed forests and absorbs and stores carbon from the atmosphere as it grows; timber is reusable, repairable and recyclable and it stores carbon until the end of its life cycle; and timber is the most economically viable material, often several times cheaper than a plastic alternative

We are also lobbying hard on the policy of subsidies for large biomass electricity plants. We are urging the Government to review that urgently.

While the UK can accommodate smaller biomass plants for heat, which burn a few hundred tonnes of timber each year and operate at 90 per cent efficiency, the large, biomass-fuelled electricity plants burn up to four million tonnes of wood every year - at just 30 per cent efficiency. That creates a substantial threat to British businesses and the environment.

The original aim of subsidies was to encourage incremental harvesting of biomass from thinnings of marginal land in local forests, which in turn ensures every useful part of a harvested tree is used and helps produce better quality sustainable timber. However, that policy has evolved; so it now artificially supports the burning of small logs rather than using them as we do in the packaging and pallet industry.

In the short-term, there are currently not enough supplies available to satisfy demand for established timber-based manufacturing industries such as ours as well as the large biomass plants. Subsidising those large energy operations damages the environment by creating a situation where virgin timber is more likely to be burnt inefficiently as biomass fuel rather than used to make carbon-storing products.

Subsidies are damaging the economy as they artificially increase the price of timber, which diverts essential supplies from manufacturing, and escalates the costs of business-critical and environmentally friendly products such as timber pallets and packaging, which are excellent examples of products that can be repeatedly recovered, repaired and recycled so as to maximise carbon storage. Policy must focus on encouraging existing uses for timber, so it is used for many years and the maximum benefit taken of its carbon storing, before it is utilised as fuel at the end of its useful life.

The subsidy system has been set up with very little consideration of the availability of biomass as these plants require up to four million tonnes of wood every year. It is a substantial threat to British manufacturing businesses and the environment. The alternative of importing vast volumes of timber from the Americas has obvious environmental and economic disadvantages.

The wood-based industries encompass the UK’s most sustainable and environmentally friendly companies, and provide a substantial level of employment – significantly more than provided by the biomass industry, for example. There are approximately 30,000 jobs provided by our sector alone. Together, we want to ensure that politicians, our customers and the general public understand the great benefits of manufacturing with wood - and the huge damage the current regime of subsidising biomass could have.

The Independent Panel on Forestry has produced an invaluable report, which highlights the vital role that our domestic woodland has to play, from the point of view of the UK economy, leisure activities and care for the environment, to name just three. We fully endorse the report’s recommendation of re-assessing the benefits of English forests and expanding the amount of planted area significantly. That sets the scene for preserving essential supplies of timber for manufacturing and raising the profile of forestry, which is undoubtedly one of the country’s most environmentally friendly industries.

However, there is much more work to be done, and TIMCON will continue to collaborate with the UK’s other timber associations to ensure that the economic and environmental benefits of timber are not only understood, but also acted upon. Politicians have a key role to play by changing the current disastrous subsidy regime for biomass.

For more information, please visit www.timcon.org, or TIMCON’s pages at ePolitix/Politics Home

“Politicians have a key role to play by changing the current disastrous

subsidy regime for biomass”


CORRIDORS:

Making the Green Deal a great deal for Britain Ed Davey,Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Buildings in the UK are among the least efficient in the world and account for 43 per cent of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Millions of homes do not

have full double-glazing. More than half do not have enough insulation or an efficient condensing boiler. Most do not even have proper heating controls.

Homes and businesses across Britain are wasting energy and money, yet demand for energy efficiency measures remains low.

This is where the Green Deal comes in – it will remove some of the biggest barriers to demand for energy efficiency solutions, like up front finance, and open up the market for more participants and more choice. From early next year, homes and businesses can make energy saving improvements at no upfront cost and pay for some or all of the work done with expected savings on energy bills.

The Energy Company Obligation (ECO), a subsidy from energy suppliers, will provide extra help for those most in need and for properties that are harder to treat.

The Green Deal will be a great deal. It will create more choice for consumers who will get the most cost effective solutions for their property without paying any more for their energy bills than they do now.

What is more, as energy prices are expected to rise over the coming years, households with Green Deals are likely to see their savings grow.

Importantly, customers taking out Green Deal plans are assured of comprehensive protection.

People want to know exactly what they are signing up to so advice from an impartial energy savings helpline and a quality mark (which every Green Deal installer, provider or adviser will have to display) will help them know who and what they can trust.

Businesses will have to abide by a code of practice, and register with the Oversight Body that oversees the Green Deal. Written permission will be required before any Green Deal work is done to a property.

The finance that people will get on the Green Deal is private finance, so providers will decide on interest rates.

The Green Deal Finance Company, which is working to provide finance to a wide customer base, wants to deliver rates of 6-8 per cent, which is below those typical for unsecured personal credit. Green Deals will be good deals.

The ‘Golden Rule’, which limits the Green Deal finance to the estimated bill savings, is a vital protection that also creates a natural incentive in the market to keep down costs.

Some people will want to repay a Green Deal early – it is up to Green Deal providers whether to charge fees for early repayment but they may only apply to Green Deals of more than 15 years duration, and must be fully disclosed to the customer at the outset. We have ensured that people repaying Green Deals early will not be subjected to excessive charges.

The Green Deal is a hugely exciting new initiative that could see British homes and businesses save enough energy to power 1 million homes by 2020. Currently, 45 different energy efficient improvements qualify for the Green Deal, ranging from cavity wall insulation to heating controls, solar devices and new lighting systems.

The Green Deal will empower consumers by giving them new ways of funding home improvements, and empower businesses by enabling them to compete for energy efficiency opportunities in new and innovative ways. It will boost the low carbon economy by supporting up to 60,000 jobs in the insulation sector alone by 2015, up from around 26,000 today.

We are also creating 1,000 green apprenticeships and investing £3.5million to up-skill assessors and installers.

I am really looking forward to seeing the Green Deal market develop, giving people the opportunity to save money, improve their homes and help cut our emissions.

I have every confidence that it will be a success and play a central role in transforming our buildings, improving energy efficiency and helping us reach our ambitious low carbon targets.

“Customers taking out Green Deal plans are

assured of comprehensive protection”


The Green Deal must be a good deal more Caroline Flint, Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Labour wants the Green Deal to succeed. We had a pay-as-you-save scheme in our manifesto, and it was the last Labour government that initiated pilot programmes to test the

scheme. If done properly, a pay-as-you-save energy efficiency scheme could create jobs, lower bills for families and cut carbon emissions. But for the Green Deal to work, it must be a good deal, too.

The public want a simple and affordable scheme so they can improve their home and cut their energy bills. With just a few weeks until the scheme is due to start, the Government still has much to do to improve the Green Deal to ensure it delivers savings for hard-pressed bill payers and offers real incentives so millions of people want to take it up.

It is not just Labour saying this. In recent months the CBI, Which?, the Federation of Masters Builders, the Construction Products Association, Green Alliance and even the Government’s own advisors, the Committee on Climate Change, have warned the Green Deal will fail without significant improvements. But the government just dismisses anyone who suggests improvements, or raises concerns, as scaremongerers – when in reality, of course, exactly the opposite is true. The real champions of the Green Deal are those of us who are trying to improve it and make it a good deal.

Most importantly, consumers need to be offered affordable rates of interest on Green Deal loans. That is absolutely crucial to making the scheme a success. Polling conducted by the Great British Refurb Campaign found that only 7 per cent of homeowners would be interested in taking up the Green Deal if the interest rate is 6 per cent or above.

But Ministers have admitted that under their plans, interest rates could be as high as 7.5 per cent - meaning that on a typical Green Deal package, families will end up paying more in repayment charges than for the original measures. For example, a Green Deal package worth £10,000, with an interest rate of 7.5 per cent over 25 years, would cost £22,000 in total to pay back. Only this out of touch Government could believe the public will think that represents a good deal. Finance at those kinds of rates will not be attractive to most people, limiting demand and leaving the Green Deal struggling to get off the ground. To make matters worse, the Government is still intent on including harsh penalty payments for repaying loans early, which will cost consumers thousands of pounds and destroy the public’s trust in the scheme.

One solution is the Green Investment Bank. The government announced last year that one of the priorities for the Bank is to provide support for the Green Deal, but they have not specified what form that will take. It is vital that any capital made available is used to secure affordable, attractive interest rates for consumers, in order to lower the cost of Green Deal packages.

Small businesses should be allowed to complete with bigger companies on a level playing field. Labour’s vision for the Green Deal is one where small businesses, co-operatives, local authorities, charities and social enterprises are able to compete alongside the big six and other large companies that want to take part in the scheme.

But the government’s proposals will restrict full access to the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which will provide subsidy for energy efficiency measures, to the Big Six energy companies. Those proposals not only limit smaller providers from competing on a level playing field across the whole Green Deal market, but entrench the dominance of the big six in our energy market. Labour wants to see the Green Deal open to all types and sizes of providers by allowing fair access to the ECO.

Lastly, we have to ensure help reaches those who need it most. Under the last Labour government, the number of houses in fuel poverty fell by 1.75 million. But with energy bills on the rise, and cut to programmes like Warm Front, there are already warnings that progress could be reversed.

Labour believes the funding from the ECO should focus on delivering for low income hard to treat homes, over able-to-pay households. That would drive carbon reduction while ensuring that we put those who need help most, first.

With time running out until the Green Deal launches, the government needs to end the uncertainty, stop the infighting and focus on developing a credible way to deliver new jobs and lower energy bills.

“We have to ensure help reaches those who need it

most”


CORRIDORS:

An out of touch Chancellor who doesn’t listen Cathy Jamieson,Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury

With Britain in the longest and deepest double-dip recession since the war, we need a Chancellor focused on helping our economy to recover, rather than making things harder for families and businesses.

Filling up the family car has become a big drag on household budgets, and the high cost of fuel has an impact right across the economy.

I constantly hear that message from constituents worried about rising prices, and businesses which are finding it harder to cope with sky high energy costs as well higher costs of transport.

We know that difficult decisions are needed to get the deficit down.

And I acknowledge that Labour did at times put up fuel duty when we were in Government. But we often delayed or cancelled planned duty rises based on the circumstances at the time – including at the height of the global financial crisis -responding to changing national and international events.

In Opposition, before the last General Election, George Osborne promised a fair fuel stabiliser. However, in his latest budget as Chancellor, he instead proposed to carry on with his planned hike in fuel duty, even though we are in the middle of a recession.

The Chancellor was only forced into a hasty and chaotic U-turn when Labour and campaigners promised to force a vote in the House of Commons.

At the time, it was called the fasted U-turn in history - but in truth his decision to carry on with the rise in the first place showed just how out of touch this Chancellor is.

Since his disastrous budget earlier this year, pressure from the public, industry and Labour has led to the Chancellor into reversals on the ‘pasty tax’, the ‘charity tax’, the ‘caravan tax’ and the ‘skip tax’ – to name but a few.

Far from securing the recovery which David Cameron and George Osborne inherited, their failed economic plans, as well as a series of wrong choices and u-turns, has delivered a deep and deepening recession, with prices rising higher than wages, borrowing £150 billion greater than planned, companies going bust and over a million young people out of work.

And in the face of increasing criticism, they seem intent on ploughing ahead with a £40,000 tax cut for millionaires and an unfair ‘granny tax’ hitting the elderly and retired.

So much for ‘we’re all in it together’.

Labour welcomed the climb down from the Chancellor on the fuel duty rise. But panic measures based more on the likelihood of losing a vote in the Commons, than on a coherent strategy, from a Chancellor fighting more for his job than for the country, is no way to run an economy.

Families, businesses and motorists need certainty and stability, especially in these tough times. Lurching from one policy reversal to another is doing nothing to promote confidence.

Unless he can get the economy moving again, the Chancellor will be back at square one as he faces January 2013 and the next planned fuel duty increase.

The Chancellor needs a proper plan for jobs, growth and the economy, and without that, short term U-turns as with the fuel duty rise will not get the Chancellor out of his predicament.

He needs to listen to the increasing numbers of respected commentators who are now echoing Labour’s calls for a change. It is time the Chancellor listened and made the changes we need to get people back into work and our economy growing again.

“Families, businesses and motorists need certainty

and stability, especially in these tough times”

Over 95% of all that we eat, drink, wear or

build is carried by a commercial vehicle.

Every consumer, even those that don’t drive, feels the effect of road fuel inflation. Nearly everyone that travels to work feels the squeeze on their disposable income as the price of fuel rises. FairFuelUK shares the Government’s view of a growing economy and a reducing deficit. The central argument behind FairFuelUK is simple and powerful. Fuel Duty should be seen as a lever for

growth; not as a spanner in the works of

progress.

In other words, it is in the interest of both the Government and the Treasury to reduce fuel duty to a level that stimulates growth and thereby yields either the same, or more, overall tax revenue to Government ‘coffers’. We are currently living in a period of double dip recession. Growth flickers in one quarter, only to fade in another. One senses that the Government is becoming ever more desperate in its search for the magic combination of measures that will ignite growth whilst not invalidating the ‘holy grail’ of deficit reduction.

FairFuelUK, is an enormous movement and one that, together with its backers, including the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the RAC, Aldermore Bank, Palletline PLC and over 310,000 members of the British public; all of whom can bear testament to the fact that high fuel duty is not just an issue for one section of society or of the economy – to a large extent, it is the economy! We implore politicians from all Parties to unite around our call for a cut in Fuel Duty to help ensure that recovery from the recession is not stifled.


CORRIDORS:

A Code of Conduct to protect the public Baroness Dianne Hayter,a Labour peer

I have been inhabiting a strange world of late, as – in the Lords – we go through the planned splitting up of the Financial Services Authority in the wake of the banking failures of 2008 and after.

The Conservatives, in opposition, without a clear idea of the best way to regulate, decided that – above all – Labour’s FSA must be broken up. So, in government (and somewhat differently from their Opposition plans), they decided to create a Financial Policy Committee (sensible, but hardly needing legislation), a Prudential Regulatory Authority (within the Bank of England) and a Financial Conduct Authority (essentially, the old FSA minus its prudential function and responsibility for insurance).

No one seriously thinks this moving of the deckchairs makes much difference. More important is really robust, thorough governance of banks and other financial institutions; a return of integrity; concern for the customer (rather than just bonus levels); and greater public interest oversight of the whole system. So in discussion with bank representatives and investment managers, as well as many a conservative, I hear “this change isn’t necessary, but we are where we are, so let’s try and make the government’s new system work”.

However, as most people were settling down to that task, along came Libor and, hot on its heels, the interest-swaps scandal (insurance mis-sold to small businesses to cover their bank overdrafts). This surely means that a Bill designed to show the UK would regulate differently to before the world’s financial crisis should now be amended to show it will also tackle the lack of integrity, indeed honesty, within the sector.

Sir Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, described those latest revelations as “shoddy and deceitful” which gave

insiders “excessive levels of compensation” whilst demonstrating “shoddy treatment of customers”. The FSA meanwhile censured Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds and RBS for “serous failings” over the sale of completely inappropriate and highly risky interest swaps to small businesses that did not understand the dangers.

Unsurprisingly, in the light of those developments, Labour tabled amendments calling for financial advisors and those who care for other people’s money to have a “duty of care” towards their clients, acting in their best interests; for there to be a Code of Conduct for all those working in this sector; for consumers’ representatives to have a say in the regulation of life assurance and with-profits funds; for financial firms to have to abide by the recognised Governance and Stewardship Codes; and for Libor to be regulated.

The Government has, unbelievably, rejected every single one of these demands. Despite the £290 million fine on Barclays and the exit of its Chief Executive, Bob Diamond, the government sees no need for a Professional Code (with its related power to strike off those who break it). Other professions have such Codes. The Solicitors’ Code says “you must act with integrity; you must act in the best interests of each client”, and its “Client’s Charter” promises always to “put your interests first”. The Surveyors’ Ethical Standards promises that each Surveyor will “act with integrity; provide a high standard of service and take responsibility”.

Interestingly, the “Peverel” Housing Group, which ran into trouble with its tenants and lessees, has learnt its lesson, and has now produced a “Customer Charter” which promises to “provide excellent customer service, be open and transparent, demonstrate value for money and consult with customers”.

If those professions, and service providers, can undertake such standards, why not our bankers and insurance companies, on whose husbandry and honesty our mortgages, pensions and savings depend?

What is extraordinary is that the government has learnt no lesson from the financial scandals and the plummeting loss of trust that the public has in the industry. Three quarters of the public want bankers prosecuted. But more important is that the financial sector simply must take action to restore confidence. The introduction of codes of conduct, and the duty to act in the best interest of consumers, could be a part of this.

Shame on the government for denying these changes. It talks about the Big Society. What the big society wants is for the little people – the saver, the pension holder, the borrower – to have their money looked after with integrity, and care. Not too much to ask. And perhaps a return to the real world of defending the interests of consumers and citizens.

“The financial sector simply must take action to restore confidence”


History in the making for the island of Ireland Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú, Director General of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and a member of Seanad Éireann for Fianna Fáil

T hroughout the troubles in Northern Ireland there was one constant: the unifying influence of Irish traditional music and other cultural traditions. Both communities could comfortably

together celebrate those traditions, share common ownership and send a positive message to the broader public at home and abroad. To this end, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann played a prominent role.

CCÉ, which was founded in 1951, is Ireland’s foremost cultural movement. The movement came into existence at a time when Ireland was suffering extreme economic deprivation. Hundreds of thousands of her young people were leaving for foreign lands. Today, CCÉ has over 400 branches in 15 countries on 4 continents. It is a matter of pride that the fledgling movement did not succumb to the despondency which was prevalent at the time of its birth.

It is a measure of the tenacity of character which was evident in CCÉ those 60 years ago that no challenge, no matter how great, is insurmountable given the right attitude of mind and generosity of spirit. Throughout the turbulent years of recent political history in Ireland, there were many stories of generosity, camaraderie and bridge building between the different communities. Among those was the binding influence of our cultural traditions and shared heritage.

Our shared heritage on the island of Ireland, which is rooted in antiquity and much older than our political divisions, is potent and positive. Our bardic icons have recorded, hopefully for posterity, the great and noble deeds of the past, which tell of the tenacity of the Irish character in the hour of need. The message is timeless. It is only when we lose contact with our own story of survival and renewal that we diminish the very source of motivation and enablement which is required at all stages of our existence and development.

The decision of CCÉ to bring the All-Ireland Fleadh Cheoil across the border in 2013 for the first time in its 60 years history is both historic and symbolic. The Fleadh has always been a celebration of personal achievement, inclusiveness and community interaction. When Derry plays host to the Fleadh next year it will open its doors and hearts to 300,000 people who will travel from all parts of the world for this manifestation of talent and unbridled friendship.

The Fleadh recognises the richness and uniqueness of Irish community life with its attendant creativity, industry and spirituality. The storyteller, the poet, the musician and the dancer will all reign supreme in the shadow of Derry’s walls. They and their community source of inspiration and creativity are rooted in tradition, which is nourished and cultivated as an unwritten story of who we are as a race; from whence we came and the lofty goals we set ourselves from generation to generation.

The significance of our cultural traditions has been acknowledged by many from all walks of life. The former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, put it very succinctly as follows: “There are some who think that Irish music, dance, song and story are the icing on life’s cake and it is true that they give us great days, greater nights and great memories. But they are not the icing on the cake; they are the leaven, the very rising ingredient itself. From them comes those intangible things that go to make up communal memory, to create identity, to nurture pride and self-confidence, from them comes the space inside a person that dreams and hopes, that space that the worst of time cannot overwhelm and the best times vindicate.”

Northern Ireland nor the island of Ireland do not exist in isolation from the rest of the world. In fact, when representatives of both traditions meet abroad it is those things with which they find common cause, rather than some historical division – perceived or otherwise – that are paramount. How often I have experienced this whether in London, Toronto or New York, or even further afield in China or Japan.

When people from the four corners of the earth converge on Derry for the All-Ireland Fleadh Cheoil in August 2014 they will bring with them that sense of oneness – a common humanity respecting and supporting each other and in tune with their Northern Ireland hosts. That will be a unique opportunity full of potential and camaraderie. The message will be in the handshake, the smile and the empathy, serenaded by harmonic musical sounds from doorways, street corners and laneways that in other times may have been less welcoming and more hostile. The negative is in the past. The positive is ours at present. We can all share and build the vision for the future.

Let the Fleadh Cheoil in Derry be another milestone in rediscovering the richness of our diversity; the creativity of a shared community inspiration; and above all our reliance on each other on our journey through life.

Ar aghaidh leis an gceol! Let the music begin.

“The message will be in the handshake, the smile

and the empathy”


C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K


COMMONWEALTH:

Dismissed by some as a relic of the past, the Commonwealth has a very positive role to play in our

future – but worrying signs of malaise and drift must first be addressed. That can in part be attributed to neglect of the institution itself – the size of its secretariat does not compare favourably with other international organisations.

But the key neglect is that of the values that will underpin the Commonwealth’s future success, values that will facilitate the trade and cultural exchange that are the organisation’s lifeblood.

Suspensions of membership following the assumption of power by the military in Pakistan and Fiji demonstrate a resolve of sorts, but standing up for human rights is about more than criticising a military coup – it requires systematic procedures for identifying and addressing abuses of many different kinds.

The failure to properly condemn the well-documented abuses during the Sri Lankan military offensive in 2009 shows that the sense of purpose and moral clarity demonstrated by the organisation in its opposition to apartheid is lacking at the present time.

It was this lack of a sense of common purpose that the Eminent Persons group (EPG), chaired by former Malaysian

Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and of which I was a member, hoped to address in its 2011 report. We made three main recommendations. Of primary importance was that of the appointment of a Commissioner for the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Human Rights, who would submit independent assessments of human rights violations to the Secretary-General and Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG). Such an office is necessary because the work required is too onerous for it to be done by the secretariat and too politically sensitive for it to be done by the Secretary-General.

Part of the reason why this is too sensitive a role for the Secretary-General is because of the nature of the office’s mandate, which does not oblige the incumbent to publicly draw instances of abuses to the public’s attention. Although the traditional role of a Secretary-General performing private rather than public diplomacy is important, the EPG recommended a greater obligation to make explicit instances of major shortcomings.

Our final recommendation was a change to the role performed by the Ministerial Action Group, which has hitherto only been able to wield the extremely blunt instrument of suspension in the most flagrant abrogation of constitutional responsibility. Instead, CMAG should be able to work with countries on a case-by-case basis, performing a rehabilitative function in addition to its punitive responsibilities.

These recommendations were put to Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in Perth last year, with mixed results. The aspect which attracted the most media attention was the failure to agree upon the establishment of a Commissioner for the Rule of Law, Democracy, and Human Rights, due to concerns of some members about intrusion in their

internal affairs. CMAG will give further consideration to the proposal, and report foreign ministers this September.

The other recommendations made more headway, with changes being made to the roles of CMAG and the Secretary-General along the lines suggested by the EPG.

The EPG report was the beginning of an ongoing process, for which I still have high hopes.

Whether or not it is successful will depend not only on the governments of member states, but on also parliamentarians and ultimately the public ensuring that their desire for accountability and transparent government is not ignored.

The EPG also called for the publication of a Commonwealth Charter, which would for the first time codify the organisation’s core values in a single document, to which governments would be accountable and which would provide the focal point for the younger generation, for whom identification with the Commonwealth is weaker than that of their parents.

As a bloc containing two billion people from over 50 countries, the Commonwealth provides a huge opportunity for close co-operation between countries that might not otherwise enjoy the fruits that belonging to such an organisation can bring.

But it is up to all of us –leaders, parliamentarians, and citizens – to ensure that this potential is realised.

Realising the potential Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, Member of the Commonwealth’s Eminent Persons Group

The Commonwealth

provides a huge opportunity for close

co-operation

“

“

AFTER A SUMMER OF STREET PARTIES, volunteers and Team GB, the value of communities working with leaders and professionals to deliver for the whole of society has never been clearer. Just as the athletes alone couldn’t deliver the Games, so we believe that clinicians alone cannot tackle our society’s growing health inequalities. Instead, healthcare workers, NHS leadership and health policymakers need to work in partnership with community leaders, faith groups and the wider voluntary and community sector if we are to achieve real progress towards health equality.

As the leading organisation that in�uences policy on health and wellbeing issues a�ecting Africans in the UK, the African Health Policy Network (AHPN) has been working hard to address the health inequalities a�ecting the UK’s African population. We work with communities to understand the root causes of health inequalities, and how to overcome them.

Following the Marmot Review into health inequalities and the NHS reforms process, the focus on achieving health equality is greater now than ever before. AHPN believes that a vital part of achieving this lies in implementing the NHS Future Forum’s ‘Make Every Contact Count’ initiative: to support

and enable all healthcare professionals to use every contact with the public to help people improve their health.

A signi�cant proportion of healthcare professionals in the NHS are African or of African descent. According to the NHS Institute for Innovation & Improvement there are 193,000 sta� from black and minority ethnic backgrounds in the NHS – representing nearly 20% of the NHS workforce. There are also 12,500 African doctors registered to work in Britain and, since the year 2000, African nurses and doctors have been issued almost 68,000 work permits to practise in the UK.

Recognising this, we believe that the African NHS workforce are a vital and often underutilised part of the process to

achieving health equality for African people. Working in partnership with communities and the third sector, African health professionals can play a unique and much-needed role in ensuring that ‘Make Every Contact Count’ works for everyone. Through their unique knowledge and understanding, the needs of African communities can be understood and addressed better. This can be achieved by harnessing their cultural competency to provide a greater focus on the impact of culture, faith and lifestyle determinants of health.

AHPN will bring about the change that is needed by creating a clinical and community-led network of African health and social care workers. The network, through a shared vision to improve health outcomes for Africans in the UK, will set policy priorities to in�uence the future direction of the NHS.

The network will be launched at an event in Westminster in November 2012. For more information please contact Jacqueline Stevenson, Head of Policy, on [email protected], call 020 7017 8910 or see www.ahpn.org

Launching a Clinical and Community Network to ‘Make Every Contact Count’

Simon Burns, Minister of State for Health, addressing AHPN’s Health Outcomes Event, Portcullis House, July 2012

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K



COMMONWEALTH:

The lost opportunitiesRuth Lea, Economic Adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group

The Commonwealth as an economic bloc is rarely discussed in Britain. But, in a world of flux

and crisis, this is an opportune moment to evaluate the economic potential of Commonwealth countries, in general, and their potential as trading partners for us, more specifically.

Commonwealth nations, taken together and including the UK, are an economic colossus comprising some 15 per cent of world GDP, 54 member states (53 excluding Fiji, which is currently suspended) and two billion citizens. They will inevitably become more influential and powerful.

The Commonwealth spans five continents and contains developed, emerging and developing economies. Crucially, the Commonwealth, in its richness and diversity, mirrors today’s global economy in a way that the European Union simply cannot start to aspire to.

The latest International Monetary Fund forecasts show that the major Commonwealth countries have healthy growth prospects in the medium-term. Looking further out, they are blessed with favourable demographics. Their working populations are projected to increase to 2050 and, insofar as

economic growth is correlated with growth in the working population, they will be some of the most important growth markets in the longer-term.

Specifically, the Commonwealth’s demographics compare very favourably with the major European countries, where working populations will age and shrink. It is mistaken and old-fashioned to regard the Commonwealth as the “past”, an outmoded relic of Empire. Commonwealth countries are young and dynamic and should play a much bigger part in Britain’s future.

The UN estimates that between 2010 and 2050, Australia’s working population will increase by 23 per cent, Canada’s by 9 per cent and India’s by 45 per cent. In contrast, Germany’s working population will fall by 25 per cent, Italy’s by 21 per cent and Spain’s by 14 per cent; though the UK’s is expected to rise by 5 per cent and France’s by 2 per cent. Note, too, that other big fallers include Japan (31 per cent), China (19 per cent) and Russia (27 per cent).

It has, moreover, been estimated that business costs are 10-15 per cent lower for Commonwealth countries trading with one another compared with Commonwealth countries trading with non-Commonwealth countries of comparable size and GDP.

That benefit, the “Commonwealth advantage”, reflects shared history and commonalities of language, law and business practice. It should act, other things being equal, as a major incentive to intra-Commonwealth trade.

UK-Commonwealth trade is already significant. In 2011, total exports of goods and services to the major Commonwealth countries were over £44 billion, 9 per cent of the total, though these exports were dwarfed by exports to the US (£80 billion) and in particular to the EU27 (£233 billion).

But it is instructive to note that whilst Britain ran a large current account deficit with the EU last year, thus

detracting from GDP, our trade with the Commonwealth countries was in healthy, GDP-enhancing surplus. Indeed, after the US, the top surplus country was Australia. But more could be done, and more should be done, to stimulate trade with rich, lucrative and growing Commonwealth markets.

In particular, serious consideration needs to be given to the development of mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreements with Commonwealth countries (along with the USA). As one of the world’s major trading nations, our future prosperity partly depends on building ties with countries that have bright futures.

But we cannot unilaterally pursue optimal trade policies whilst we are in the EU’s Customs Union. That is an inescapable fact. The EU’s Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, negotiates the deals he considers in the interests of the EU, understandably, and not in the interests of any one member state.

There are currently no deals with either the USA or Australia or, indeed, with New Zealand. Those are lost opportunities. And, by the way, this country is quite large enough and significant enough to negotiate its own trade deals.

If Britain were free of the EU we could push ahead and negotiate the right deals for this country. We could negotiate deals with favoured non-EU countries and blocs starting with the Commonwealth. And we could also negotiate a Swiss-style relationship, based on free trade and mutually beneficial bilateral agreements, with EU countries. And, yes, they would trade with us, given that it would be in their economic interest! If those links were developed, Britain, rather than being “isolated”, would actually be better internationally networked and better placed, especially with the world’s growing economies, than as a member of the EU.

It is mistaken and old-fashioned

to regard the Commonwealth as

the ‘past’

“

“


COMMONWEALTH:

Reflecting upon the Diamond Jubilee year, there are few institutions that have

survived Her Majesty’s reign with such a dazzle of possibility as the Commonwealth.

A reign under which many member nations began as colonies but eventually emerged from as fast growing economies with vibrant democracies looking for partnership with their former master.

The Commonwealth has about a quarter of the world’s available hard and soft resources yet still amounts to only a seventh of the globe’s GDP.

The unutilised opportunities and technological know-how contained, yet unconnected, within its membership are unparalleled.

Yet when contemplated, it is clear that its diversity and the goodwill it maintains could be the key to a new shared appreciation of a greater Commonwealth; of a wealth developed in common.

Seven years ago, I set up Made In Africa with a lawyer, Chris Cleverly, and a Ugandan prince, Hassan Kimbugwe, to look at kick starting

growth in Africa based on enterprise rather than aid.

The prognosis for Africa was poor; UK industry was only interested in what it could get out of Africa rather than what it could put in and Africa’s leaders were not much better.

Ably supported by Andrew Young and Herbie Hancock, we co-hosted the African Union state banquet in 2007, with Ghana’s president, John Kufour. It marked 50 years of Ghana’s independence.

Chris wrote a speech, read by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, that heralded hope for Africa’s emergence into a cycle of virtuous growth: of ample food, clean water, lights that never went out, of railways across its vast expanses, of homes worthy of the name and of lives worth living.

The audience of all 53 African presidents rose to their feet and applauded, and I was hugged by many a ruler since then damned by history. And then, that was it.

We went back to the near impossible task of introducing ethical African opportunities to British businesses. And the politicians carried on as normal.

But despite them, powered by a global commodity boom and a revolution of mass wireless telephony, the sub Sahara’s GDP grew into double digits for some states (Ghana, 14 per cent last year, and Sierra Leone, 51 per cent forecast for this year).

It was clear to us that for those changes to become permanent, they had to be matched with the sustainable infrastructure development of transport networks.

Those would connect with planned urban, commercial and agricultural environments to create Growth Corridors.

The route out of continental

poverty was much more about further railways and roads than additional hospitals and schools.

According to some estimates, a one per cent increase in the infrastructure stock in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) could add one per cent to GDP growth.

That statistic is all the more profound as African countries, already growing at 5 per cent per annum, need economic growth of around 7 per cent per annum in order to halve the number of people living on less than $1 a day.

And so we organised a conference on African Growth Corridors with the Department for International Development at which I spoke with David Miliband and Mo Ibrahim in 2009.

In particular, we proposed the opening up of a Growth Corridor by a consortium of British household names backed by the UK credit rating, along a new trans-Saharan railway from the new oil port of Takoradi in Ghana, across Burkina, Niger to the Libyan oil port of Misrata.

Opening up the Sahel and creating a $100bn African “game changer”, lifting millions out of poverty and bringing much needed growth to the beleaguered British economy.

Perhaps it was too big a role for Britain to play alone but it would not be for an empowered Commonwealth.

Projects of global importance could be identified, unifying peoples and bridging divides, behind which the members combined $10 trillion economy could stand.

Changing the fortunes of its poorer partners and boosting the economies of all.

Now that would be a diamond opportunity for this Diamond Jubilee.

A diamond opportunity Ozwald Boateng, Saville Row fashion designer and co-founder of Made In Africa Foundation

Image: M

iles Warren and O

zwald B

oateng

The Commonwealth has about a quarter

of the world’s available hard and soft resources yet

still amounts to only a seventh of the

globe’s GDP

“

“


FEATURES:

The standard of government in Britain has descended to a new low. Little or no thought is given to longer term policies in areas of major national importance. Examples

are widespread; the government is to spend some £130 billion on replacing Trident and building two aircraft carriers, when serious questions are being asked about their strategic value. It is abundantly clear that the government has no coordinated long-term policy for our three armed services. As to the present, Vince Cable has said that: “There is powerful evidence to support claims that MOD [Ministry of Defence] equipment plans are totally unrealistic in the light of Britain’s serious budgetary constraint”.

It has been announced that £4 billion is to be invested in the electrification of large parts of the rail network, when there is no coordinated policy at all for rail, road and aviation. The government’s recent paper on aviation “policy” has been described as “a document not worth the name, since it did not address the issue of runway capacity near London”, let alone the crying need for a new London airport, preferably in the Thames Estuary.

Consideration of our future Energy needs continues to be the subject of unending and ill-informed political party argument, based on opinion and emotion rather than objective analysis of the evidence regarding the relative merits of nuclear, tidal, wave, gas or wind power. Meanwhile, time for action is running out.

There is a state of general malaise in the country provoked by the current economic climate, but there would seem to be a deeper and more long lasting cause. Governments have their eyes glued on the next election, devoting too much time to playing party politics, when their constitutional responsibility is to the country as a whole. Our democracy is being seriously mismanaged.

As the Financial Times commented this July: “Politicians have used the crisis not as a platform for serious debate but to score points off each other”. Members of the government and opposition front bench “behave not as serious statesmen but as little more than bickering schoolchildren”.

On Lords’ Reform, Michael Portillo has expressed his disbelief that David Cameron “could genuinely wish to see our century’s old second chamber annihilated by a piece of legislation that does not even merit the description half-baked”.

The Scottish historian Niall Ferguson said, in the first of his Reith lectures, referring to the huge debts that have been accumulated by Western Nations in recent decades, that: “At the heart of the matter is the way public debt allows the current generation of voters to live at the expense of future generations. Government statistics are deeply misleading, since they encompass only the sums owed by government in the form of bonds. They do not include the often far larger unfunded liabilities, such as welfare schemes and defence.”

Niall Ferguson rightly considers that the way forward is to alter the way in which governments account for their finances. Public sector balance sheets should be drawn up so the real liabilities of governments can be compared with their assets. Generational accounts should be published regularly so that governments know where they are going and the electorate is properly equipped to hold them to account. He described the present accounting system as “fraudulent”. Not even national current income and expenditure statements can be relied upon.

The chairman of one of the largest multinational groups wrote in his message to shareholders in the annual report for 2011: “Today’s volatile world requires more than we alone can deliver. We are forging strong ties with partners. These partners can be governmental or non-governmental bodies, commercial or non-commercial institutions. The task is clear: create a system that is secure, affordable and sustainable”. For “We”, read “The Government”.

Although there are obvious differences between the political and industrial worlds, the political class would do well to ponder the chairman’s words, particularly when the government believes that we should go it alone, remaining nothing better than semi-detached Europeans clinging on to America’s coat tails.

A call to politicians: start thinking about the country – not the next election Sir Harold Atcherley, Former international businessman and government advisor

Our democracy

is being seriously mismanaged

“

“

Imag

e: A

licia

Ric

hmon

d


FEATURES:

What are Public Service Ethics? Why are they important? And does anyone care about them? As a former soldier, civil servant, local councillor, and then a businessman

for the last 15 years, I do care!

The Seven Principles of Public life are as good as any. The Seven include selflessness, integrity and honesty. I did, however, like the old civil service code before it was modernised. The key phrase in that was “without fear or favour”, which encapsulated both the speaking truth unto power element - saying “No”, Minister or Councillor or Chief Executive - and impartiality as to special interests.

As a Private Secretary to Ministers, I faced those party political and special interest dilemmas, and got it wrong from time-to-time. But I did have some role models and underlying sense of where the boundaries lay. My experience is that people do not have such support in place any more. And the values have been under attack for some time, and consequently have eroded.

My experience starts with the 1980s; the rise of managerialism, the privatisation of state industries and the contracting out of support services in the public sector. That was against the background of pernicious individualism in wider society. Public

servants were urged to become “can do” regardless of better judgement. Many became zealots for the new ideology. (Of course, that does not mean to say that examples could not been found earlier - I just think that the values of the public sector as a force for good had been under sustained attack over the period in question). And if you were not a “Yes” man or woman, you put your career in jeopardy.

Top managers, who should have been the bulwark against such politicisation and group think, were captured by that, fuelled by fear and self-interest. It began the era of private sector good, public sector bad. That politicisation and privatisation continued throughout the Blair years with the seemingly innocuous “What Works”. (Margaret would have been frit of the reach of the Blair privatisation programme!)

Accountability has been made much more opaque and slippery as a result of all the contracting out – ultimately does anyone take responsibility?

With the Conservative-led Coalition, we have a renewed zeal. Clearly a big fight has taken place at the centre of government about privatisation of the central core of civil service work. Impartial and objective policy advice (without fear or favour!), the raison d’être, is now seemingly up for grabs.

Although the words have been watered down to salve consciences (see civil service reform plan), it is clear what the real purpose is. The agenda seems to be: let us capture the core purpose of the civil service because if we break this, we can destroy it and have free rein with the levers of power. That fundamentally misunderstands the constitutional necessity of an impartial and apolitical civil service and public sector. The question that needs asking is: who is going to advise Ministers impartially and objectively on the information and conclusions made by a range of institutions with an axe to grind? Other political appointees? Do not make me laugh!

Are these ethics across the public sector worth rescuing and strengthening? Yes, is my resounding answer. I think there could be a coalition to promote a strong core state as a force for good. On the face of it, that should chime with all political parties. Is not their very essence about furthering the public good? Conservative tradition on that subject was outlined by William Waldegrave in The Times this July, who supported such a view of the state. Now we have heard ministers wondering aloud (Jeremy Hunt and Phillip Hammond) whether privatisation is always wise following the massive failure of G4S at the Olympics.

But to chime with the times, the fight back needs to be realistic. The only thing that is understood is economic value. Could some clever economist put monetary value on public service ethics? That may be the only way to get this back on the agenda.

My proposition is that restoring and celebrating those ethics could enhance the nation’s sense of itself and well-being. To join with Adair Turner, if the commercial banks are socially useless, can we at least recognise that the purpose of the public sector is to be socially beneficial?

A code worth fighting for

Geoff Langsdon, Head of Training, Government Knowledge

Impartial and

objective policy advice is now up for

grabs

“

“


FEATURES:

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a case study of bad law, done badly – and then made worse. It was misconceived on many levels. Firstly, serious studies show that training and treatment are

far more influential than breed in determining the behaviour of a dog. Secondly, even if you believe that the main problem is dangerous breeds (and you would be wrong) the number of banned breed dogs in the UK has not fallen but has risen massively since 1991. And thirdly, those charged with enforcing the law will tell you that it is fiendishly difficult and expensive to identify a banned breed because most dogs are cross-bred.

As Police and Crime Commissioner elections get underway, expect some candidates to seize on the issue of ‘dangerous dogs’. It might even be one of those small but very tangible ‘quality of life’ issues for the Coalition government and the Labour opposition that may shape the second half of this parliamentary term.

The most recent response has been to toughen up the regulations around irresponsible ownership and increase sentences for such owners to 18 months. About time too, and hard-core, violent and abusive owners should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. But the truth is that the impact for those who live with the issue every day will be negligible.

Research by The Campaign Company would suggest that it might steal headlines but it is unlikely to make us safer. The expediential rise in bull breed dog ownership needs to be thoroughly understood if the behaviour of owners and their dogs is to be changed. We looked at why young people want to own such dogs and the role that they play in their lives. And before blood vessels start to burst all over this year’s Conference season, I believe that our approach – coupled with intelligent use of the criminal justice process – is what will actually reduce attacks

on innocent people and increase safety. And that is surely the aim of any intervention.

Our research showed that:

• A majority of young urban dog owners define themselves as good owners. Un-segmented messages about ‘dangerous dogs’ aimed at those who fear crime, will bounce off these young people (in fact, they will exacerbate the problem as ‘good’ dog owners are further stigmatised and driven closer to the gang/gangsta culture that normalises violence);

• The clue is in the name - most own dogs as they confer status. For most this means just that – it does not extend to violence. So communication needs to centre on how we can enhance this status to achieve good behaviour, rather than rail against it;

• The dogs also satisfy other needs providing companionship where job, housing and relationship security are low and interlinked;

• Almost all the participants love their dogs! Most dog owners hate cruelty and mistreatment and regard themselves as good owners. But they will not easily receive messages from authority figures. From our research into motivational values and social networks, those people will cluster in like-minded networks that have the same self-reinforcing values;

• Whilst they love their dogs, they tend to lack accurate knowledge about welfare and training. The prevailing narrative of those in the social networks around them is that you train through punishment. The use of ‘play’ to train dogs is seen as counter intuitive in the often-harsh world of these young people. Messages introduced by trusted peers in their community will be far more effective than lectures from people like us.

If urban dog owners buy the idea that training their dogs correctly means more control - thus making them look good - this is more likely to satisfy outer-directed ‘status’ motivations. It will also lead to fewer incidents of dogs injuring people when out of control. Legislation and regulation will, of course, remain important. But public authorities must recognise the role of behaviour change.

Furthermore, there is a big opportunity to engage with a large group of young people on an issue they care deeply about. Young bull breed dog owners advocating for better training and welfare to their peers will be massively more effective than more traditional interventions. The majority are keen to distance themselves from the minority of those they regard as bad owners. Public policy should drive a wedge between those groups and seek to harness the peer pressure of ‘good owners’ against the bad. At the moment, public policy tends to drive these groups closer together by stigmatising all urban bull breed dogs and their owners.

The TCC research programme is summarised in: Research Project Report: Status Dogs Young People and Criminalisation: towards a preventative strategy Professor Gordon Hughes, Dr Jenny Mather, Claire Lawson for the RSPCA by the Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice April 2011.

http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/wp139.pdf

Focus on the owners and not the dogsDavid Evans, Co-founder and Director of The Campaign Company

The Dangerous

Dogs Act 1991 is a case study of

bad law

“

“


FEATURES:

Building on the success of its previous conferences on Higher Education, Government Knowledge, a recognised leader in providing a platform for politicians and stakeholders to

communicate with each other on key issues facing the UK, ran a high-profile event this summer on post-sixteen education and skills. Like with previous GovKnow events, an enlightening discussion quickly ensued following talks by politicians and academics that lay the ground for a thought-provoking day.

Held at the Arlington Conference Centre, in central London, the “Higher Education, Further Education & Skills Conference” focused on the current state of education, courses and qualifications for post-sixteen year olds in the UK, their importance to the UK economy and the challenges they are currently facing.

First to take the stage was Barry Sheerman MP, current Chair of the Skills Commission and a leading authority on education at Parliament. Commenting on the formulation of skills policy in the UK, Barry said that there is no “systematic approach” to it as “secretaries of state and junior ministers come and go”. He added that the same applies to civil servants, who move from one department to another for “career development”.

Dismissing the notion that education policy is highly ideological, Barry contended that it is actually more “cross-party, more pragmatic” than many people realise. To corroborate that, he cited how when Margaret Thatcher was the Education Secretary in Ted Heath’s government, “more grammar schools were abolished than under any other Education Secretary.” Barry made a strong plea for an “all-party consensus” on where to take education today, arguing in particular that: “The state must spend money early on in education to prevent children from going into criminality.”

With apprenticeships having increased in size and importance over the last few years, Sarah Benioff, Director of the National Apprenticeship, commented on her “pride” of how today “the size of apprenticeship programmes continue to grow strongly based on

employer and individual demand.” However, Sarah warned that there are “not enough large-sized employers offering apprenticeship opportunities.”

Adrian Bailey MP, Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, emphasised the importance of Higher Education to the UK. He stated that it is “vital” as it “meets business demands and is a major export earner”. Adrian went on to say that: “Higher Education is an enormous contribution to the British economy. It is the best long-term investment to make in enhancing Britain’s role globally. Furthermore, there is an enormous dividend stemming from foreign students studying in the UK.”

Commenting on where university applications are coming from today, Adrian said that fewer males are applying. In regard to applications from outside the UK, Adrian stated that applications from EU students have dropped while applications from non-EU students have increased.

Referring to the changes to Higher Education currently being initiated by the Coalition Government, Adrian averred that these are “the most profound since the end of the Second World War”. He elaborated by saying: “The current changes are financially driven. And the Government does not really know where the changes are going.”

A powerful talk was then delivered by Professor Craig Mahoney, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Authority, which is the UK body that works in partnership with institutions, academic staff, funding bodies and governments to strengthen the quality of the student-learning experience for students studying for a Higher Education award.

Craig said that the field of education in the UK is an “outstanding example of success” and cited how overseas students are worth £5 billion a year to the UK economy. However, he argued that Higher Education in the UK is experiencing “the most turbulent times for decades”. He urged for universities to be “more accountable” and stated how it is “wrong” that “by going to Oxford or Cambridge gives a student an advantage to getting a job.”

The “Higher Education, Further Education & Skills Conference” was supported by important sponsors including the British Red Cross, the University of Chester and Apprentice Extra.

Speaking to Politics First at the end of the conference, Jay Patel, Programme Director at GovKnow, said that: “This conference has provided attendees with the perfect forum for discussing key issues including Higher Education, Further Education & Skills reform, investment in apprenticeships, the importance of community skills, widening participation and tackling NEET – Not in Education, Employment or Training - issues. We look forward to building on the success of this event through our Employment & Skills Conference to be held in May 2013.”

With Higher Education being one of the key areas under consideration at present in Whitehall, the next GovKnow conference on this area will help to facilitate important questions and answers that will assist policy-makers in deciding where and how to take Higher Education next.

Where next for Higher Education?

Marcus Papadopoulos, Editor, Politics First

Overseas students are worth £5 billion

a year to the UK economy

“

“


FEATURES:

Investment in research and innovation is about future-proofing our economy. It safeguards our competitiveness and that means jobs.

We know that those countries which have consistently invested the most in research and innovation have weathered this economic crisis the best. Innovation gives our companies an edge, and employment growth in highly R&I-intensive sectors is generally higher. So we need to invest more in innovation, we need to create better conditions for our innovators, and we need to teach the right skills.

Innovation Union, launched by the European Commission in October 2010, aims to improve conditions and access to finance for research and innovation in Europe, making our economy smarter and more competitive.

Horizon 2020, the European Union’s proposed new research and innovation programme, is a key pillar of Innovation Union. Running from 2014 to 2020 with a proposed budget of €80 billion, it is a programme to stimulate growth and jobs.

Our focus is on supporting the best research ideas that provide major business opportunities and change people’s lives for the better.

For the first time at European level, Horizon 2020 offers a seamless, coherent package of support from idea to market, from excellent research to innovative products and services that people want to buy.

Horizon 2020 will make our investment in research and innovation simpler, more efficient, and more effective. It will help sustain growth and tackle the big challenges that really matter to people, such as climate change, health, energy and food security.

We are also already working to make a difference to the innovation environment in Europe. Good progress has been made in launching and implementing 30 out of the 34 Innovation Union commitments.

The Commission has, for instance, put forward all six legislative proposals identified under Innovation Union: Horizon 2020, a new Cohesion policy, reform of public procurement legislation, a new regime for venture capital, a standardisation package, and legislative proposals for unitary patent protection. Those proposals promise a step change in framework conditions for innovation in Europe.

We also have a deadline of 2014 to achieve the European Research Area, a genuine single market for ideas. That will enable researchers, research institutions and businesses to better move, compete and co-operate across borders. At the moment there are just too many barriers and a lack of transparency, for instance when awarding funding and research positions. Just as the single market for goods has made EU industry more competitive, a single market for research and researchers will make our R&D systems more competitive.

Finally, we need more researchers - in fact - Europe will need one million more researchers by 2020 if we are to meet our economic and innovation goals. That starts with more focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) subjects in school, with more innovative teaching methods. I especially want to encourage more girls into science. We need more third level graduates to fill high-tech jobs in the EU, and we need graduates to be more mobile. The Commission presented a new strategy for the modernisation of the higher education system in Europe in September last year.

The Commission is focused on making Europe more competitive, supporting the best research and turning it into growth and jobs.

We need the support of policy-makers and stakeholders across Europe for Innovation Union, Horizon 2020, and to complete the European Research Area. Then the best ideas can be used in a way that makes a real difference across our continent. Only then will the European Union become an Innovation Union.

Turning the European Union into an Innovation Union Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science

Europe will need one million more researchers by

2020

“

“


BOOK REVIEW:

Geoffrey Roberts, who is considered one of the best military historians of our time, has produced an extraordinary book about the Russian general whose great victories in the Nazi-

Soviet War were unsurpassed in the twentieth-century. His book, Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov, is not only scrupulous but its fourteen highly readable and compressed chapters give readers many more fascinating details about Zhukov’s military and private life than previous biographies. Most important, the book is loyal to historical truth and should be particularly welcome to those for whom Hitler’s invasion of Russia is only a vague memory or who were born many years after World War Two.

An interesting feature of the biography is the author’s comparison of Marshal Zhukov with Allied generals such as Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery and MacArthur, as well as the German generals Guderian and Manstein. Roberts says that: “The conclusion to be drawn from this survey of comparable generals is that while Zhukov did not excel as ‘the best ever’ in any one field of military endeavor, he was the best all-around general of the Second World War. He inspired the affection and confidence of his troops – as well as their fear – if not the ungrudging respect of all his peers. He was stoic in defeat and exuberant in victory. He had seemingly inexhaustible reserves of energy and the will to succeed however challenging the circumstances.”

Roberts affirms that a “particular component” of Zhukov’s success on the battlefield “was that he was a Soviet general and it is unlikely he would have been so effective a general in any other army.” A U.S. general has expressed a different view. Walter Bedell Smith, who was General Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff, met Zhukov often and knew a good deal about him. In a memoir, Smith says that Zhukov would have been a “great” leader “in any other

country.”

In mid-December 1941, the Soviet press carried the news of Zhukov’s stunning success in turning the tide in the battle for Moscow. In the West, the media took notice of Zhukov. Alexander Worth, the Sunday Times correspondent in Moscow, wrote that: “The name mentioned most frequently, next to Stalin and Molotov, is Zhukov’s. Zhukov played a leading part in organising not only the counter-offensive at Moscow but it was largely he, and perhaps entirely he, who saved Leningrad in the nick of time.”

In his inclusive biography, Roberts gives ample space to American historian David Glantz, author of the controversial book, Zhukov’s Greatest Defeat: The Red Army’s Epic Disaster in Operation Mars. Roberts says Glantz “makes a powerful case” when he says Zhukov suffered a setback in the clash of armies in the Rzhev-Viazma sector west of Moscow, a battle that was fought simultaneously with Operation Uranus (the battle at Stalingrad), that it was not a “diversionary” battle as Zhukov claimed.

But the reality was extremely complex. Briefly, the Nazi High Command waged two parallel offensives: one at the Rzhev-Vyazma front, a hundred miles West of Moscow, the other at Stalingrad. If the Nazis had moved hundreds of thousands of troops and artillery from the Rzhev-Vyazma front to Stalingrad, there was a good chance Stalingrad would have fallen to the enemy. Stalin sent Zhukov to that front to prevent such a disaster.

Vladimir Karpov, a historian who had fought at the Rzhev sector, provides evidence that it was only a diversionary battle. He recalls that when the enemy launched a powerful attack, his regimental commander said: “It’s good they’re strong. Full-strength German units are coming at us. That’s very good!”

At first Karpov was shocked. Why was his commander so cheerful? In his own words: “What good was a strong enemy attack for us?” Later he understood. The aim of the Russians was to try and smash the German forces and prevent the enemy from transferring troops to the Stalingrad front. This task was accomplished by Zhukov.

At the beginning of his opus, Roberts cites the late historian John Erickson as “the foremost British authority on the Red Army.” Erickson, he relates, called Zhukov: “The greatest soldier so far produced by the 20th century. He is the general who never lost a battle.”

Roberts concludes his exemplary biography by saying “the Zhukov legend” has continued to grow. The author underlines Zhukov’s rise “from peasant poverty to become a great general and a hero not only to the Russian people but to all those who value his incomparable contribution to the victory over Nazi Germany.”

Albert Axell is completing a book entitled “Greatest Russian War Stories, 1941-1945.” He has written five books about World War Two including “Stalin’s War: Through the Eyes of His Commanders.” In the 1980s and 1990s, he interviewed more than thirty of Stalin’s surviving wartime generals.

Georgy Zhukov: General Victory

Albert Axell, Military historian

The Russian general whose great victories in the Nazi-

Soviet War were unsurpassed in the

20th century

“

“


Dubai, 4–6 March 2013

Register to attendRegistration opens 19 November 2012 with early-bird rates until 14 December 2012.

Call for proposalsOur call for proposals is now open and we invite you to submit a paper addressing the following three themes:

Research and innovation: the role of international collaboration

Developing skilled knowledge workers: the role of international collaboration

Internationalising tertiary education structures and systems.

Submit your proposal by 17 September 2012

What to expect 200+ high-profile speakers including:

− His Excellency Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, UAE

− Dr Jo Beall, Director, Education and Society, British Council

− Martin Bean, Vice-Chancellor, Open University

− Mourad Ezzine, Education Sector Manager, Middle East and North Africa, World Bank

− Dr Tayeb Kamali, Vice-Chancellor, Higher Colleges of Technology

− Professor Louise Richardson, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of St Andrews

− Professor Eric Thomas, Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol and President, Universities UK

50+ informative poster presentations showcasing leading case studies40+ exhibitors 30+ workshops and parallel sessions 1,000+ participants from 80+ countries

We invite you to join more than 1,000 leaders of international higher education to debate global education: knowledge-based economies for 21st-century nations

The Going Global 2013 international education conference will examine to what extent knowledge economies are already internationalised and what impact they will have on the wealth, prosperity and wellbeing of nations, communities and cultures.

On the basis that research and tertiary education systems are the primary drivers of knowledge economies, the conference will bring together the world’s experts to present and debate the latest thinking on current practices, systems and delivery mechanisms.

Participants will identify future trends, and explore the challenges and opportunities these present for research and tertiary systems in creating knowledge-based economies for 21st-century nations.


Dubai, 4–6 March 2013

Register to attendRegistration opens 19 November 2012 with early-bird rates until 14 December 2012.

Call for proposalsOur call for proposals is now open and we invite you to submit a paper addressing the following three themes:

Research and innovation: the role of international collaboration

Developing skilled knowledge workers: the role of international collaboration

Internationalising tertiary education structures and systems.

Submit your proposal by 17 September 2012

What to expect 200+ high-profile speakers including:

− His Excellency Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, UAE

− Dr Jo Beall, Director, Education and Society, British Council

− Martin Bean, Vice-Chancellor, Open University

− Mourad Ezzine, Education Sector Manager, Middle East and North Africa, World Bank

− Dr Tayeb Kamali, Vice-Chancellor, Higher Colleges of Technology

− Professor Louise Richardson, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of St Andrews

− Professor Eric Thomas, Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol and President, Universities UK

50+ informative poster presentations showcasing leading case studies40+ exhibitors 30+ workshops and parallel sessions 1,000+ participants from 80+ countries

We invite you to join more than 1,000 leaders of international higher education to debate global education: knowledge-based economies for 21st-century nations

The Going Global 2013 international education conference will examine to what extent knowledge economies are already internationalised and what impact they will have on the wealth, prosperity and wellbeing of nations, communities and cultures.

On the basis that research and tertiary education systems are the primary drivers of knowledge economies, the conference will bring together the world’s experts to present and debate the latest thinking on current practices, systems and delivery mechanisms.

Participants will identify future trends, and explore the challenges and opportunities these present for research and tertiary systems in creating knowledge-based economies for 21st-century nations.

INTERVIEW: ANGELA EAGLE

ANGELA EAGLEShadowing the House and Party

Why do you believe the House of Commons is in need of reform

My view is that the House needs to be more friendly to the electorate. I do not believe that many young people, for example, understand the arcane language used in the House, such as “The Right Honourable Gentleman”, and this is an important group in society to reach out to in order to ensure that Parliament really is the “People’s Parliament”. So I have given evidence to the Procedures Committee, which is responsible for looking into reform of the House, on making Parliament more understandable to the public that it represents and serves.

What has been the response of the Government to your calls for reform?

I believe the Government wants reform to go thus far and no farther. They have an agenda, put together before the 2010 general election, which is quite limited and which focuses mainly on e-petitions and the Wright Proposals. But that is simply not good enough and certainly not good enough for British democracy. We need a deeper democratic approach to policy-making and therefore I am currently in the process of drawing up a manifesto for change in the chamber for the next general election.

And the response of Labour MPs?

We are in the debate stage at the moment but Labour MPs are more on the side of progressive politics and committed to empowering ordinary people up and down the country.

The Parliamentary Labour Party is very keen to make sure that democratic decision-making is more responsive to what people want and that it engages people more.

Turning to the mechanics of the Labour Party, what plans do you have to reinvigorate the National Policy Forum as its Chair?

The party’s policy-making process needs to be more transparent, more empowering and less worried about having debates.

In Aston, this summer, I implemented the first changes to the National Policy Forum which allowed the working groups on the first day to come up with two specific areas which they wanted to discuss and we subsequently held workshops on these areas-areas which were considered important by party members, such as housing, proper access to transport, employment law and protection at work.

So with the help of the National Executive Committee, I want to implement further changes to make debate more meaningful and open it up to party members and those outside the party, too.

Do you sympathise with those Constituency Labour Parties which believe the NPF has in the past mattered little in reality?

There has been a great deal of cynicism expressed in the past about the NPF and with some justification in my view. The NPF was not allowed to do its job properly and the system tended to suppress rather than encourage discussion.

The party should not be frightened of opinions. So I want to see a process which encourages vigorous and intelligent debates and this is something that is very much supported by Ed Miliband.

But at the same time once we have this new process installed people must accept the resolution of the process.

The Labour Party has a great tradition of raucous debate, and it is my intention to strengthen this and by doing so strengthen the democratic process and credentials of the party.

Angela Eagle, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons and Chair of the National Policy Forum of the Labour Party, tells Marcus Papadopoulos of her plans to reform Parliament and to involve Labour grassroots more in party policy-making


INTERVIEW: IBM

CRIME ANALYTICS:the future for law and order

What is Crime Analytics?

There may be differing responses to this very moot question depending upon the experience and involvement of the recipient in the crime investigation community. There are, however, common factors and from my own practitioner viewpoint, put simply, it is the systematic analysis of relevant information or data that is gathered by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) in their day-to-day business, be that as part of a specific criminal investigation, a community policing function or any other type of intelligence gathering role. Regardless of the practitioner’s function, such analysis allows LEAs to identify patterns, trends and linkages contained within that data which enables a more efficient and proactive response to crime and disorder.

Why is there a need for it?

Since the Romans created Law and Order and the Magistrate System, crime has been investigated. The difference between then and now is the mass of information that needs to be analysed. Prior to the digital and computer age, detectives would often use a hand written card system to collate information, while the actual analysis would be undertaken utilising documented charts combined with only personal experience and intuition. However, in 1986, within the UK, a major development saw the introduction of ‘computerisation’, and the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) was created as an administrative system to collate all information on major enquiries. As part of the early HOLMES system, crime analysts used IBM i2 analysis solutions to visualise all relevant data in order to provide Senior Investigating Officers (SIO) with patterns, trends or linkages to direct them towards suspects.

In 2012 and in the coming years, the volumes of data created and available to LEAs is already vast and will only

increase. A single police force creates electronic crime reports, custody reports, intelligence reports, such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition, CCTV images and sightings, as well as numerous other data sources. In addition to that, national agencies have central databases such as the Police National Database. As a result of the Soham child murder investigation in the UK, the Government-led Bichard recommendations stressed a requirement for cross agency and police force intelligence sharing. All that creates the need to have the ability to analyse multiple systems, and this need is substantially greater than ever before.

As more systems are created and

databases get larger, the need to analyse will increase and the capability for automatic pattern detection to support police decision- makers and investigators will become a requirement. That will, in turn, impact upon crime detection rates, introduce positive crime prevention strategies and enable effective enforcement resourcing.

What are the benefits?

Put simply, better crime analysis across all areas of Law Enforcement work keeps the public safe by detecting more crimes, predicting crime trends and anticipating hotspots in (near) real time. The result is better resourcing and an ability to improve crime prevention measures.

Shaun Hipgrave, Strategic Alliances IBM UK, discusses with Marcus Papadopoulos IBM’s cutting edge technology for tackling crime and enhancing policing


INTERVIEW: IBM Some police forces in the UK have

already centralised all of their available data sources, and are using IBM analytic systems to review all this information at both a senior and middle management level as well as for operational analyst use allowing operational decisions based on the latest and most complete information available. That has saved significant investigation and resource hours by early focus of investigations, improved targeting and preventative community patrolling.

The next step for UK Police forces would be to take the analytics up to the next level by incorporating pattern detection and predictive analysis. That will further improve the ability for crime prevention and optimised deployment of resources. It will also allow more efficient investigation and intelligence generation in large data sets and from open source intelligence.

The Memphis Police Department, for example, was able to bring crime rates back to the level of 25 years ago (after being in the top 10 for criminal cities in the US) by deploying their resources to locations with an expected high crime risk. That risk is determined based on patterns detected in both internal crime reports and police presence and external data like weather conditions, city events and other important crime triggers and enablers.

There are also wider benefits than the UK national and local Law Enforcement organisations. Crime analysis in the UK is globally recognised as being at the cutting edge of crime investigations.

The recent Defence and Security Technology white paper has created a Security Authority led by a senior responsible owner and a small team of staff within the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism at the Home Office to represent the UK Security Industry in exporting our world class technologies. Both our UK analysis experience and our cutting edge analysis systems are leading the way in creating this growth in exports.

Can you detail the role that IBM is playing in the field including who it is working with.

IBM is taking analytics and analysis to a new level. It is currently working towards solutions for large data sets. It has taken its vast global experience in analytics and has merged predictive analystics, identity analytics, text analytics, visual and investigative analytics in (near) real time analysis solutions around ‘Big Data’.

And who is IBM working with? It is not just Law Enforcement agencies; IBM has created its smarter cities programme

that is working with public authorities globally. It integrates the data from all the emergency services, public utilities and other public services and uses its analytical solutions to feed an Intelligence Operatons Centre (IOC) that enables users to utilise resources more effectively. Rio de Janerio is currently running such an IOC in anticipation of the next World Cup.

Is IBM working on this outside of the UK, too?

IBM smarter cities is global; it has examples in the UK and Europe as well as the US and Asia. Indeed, it has analysis solutions in 150 countries worldwide, with every major LEA and Intelligence agency including all of the UK Police Forces and 60 per cent of US police forces. IBM i2, created in Cambridge and based both in Cambridge as well as in the US, has sold 350,000 licenses worldwide.

In the US and Europe, several agencies have incorporated more advanced pattern detection solutions in their investigations and in, for example, insider threat and cyber crime detection solutions. The combination of these automated techniques with IBM’s leading investigative analysis and visualisation solutions allow for early detection and rapid solution of crimes.

Finally, how does IBM intend to take Crime Analytics forward?

Even though IBM has taken great strides in crime analytics it still has more to do. All organisations are going to have to consider the growth of electronic data in our everyday lives and this in turn creates large data sets. Legacy IT structures are struggling to cope with those increases. IBM Cloud Solutions is one route through that, linking IBM analytics with its secure privatecloud solutions will create the bandwidth that many organisations will need going forward.

LEAs still need to work hard on sharing data and pooling it in physical or virtual data repositories. That has a separate challenge as often national legislation needs to be changed to allow this. It is commonly accepted that one of the ways that crime analysis can only advance is by improving the size of the pool it is working from.

There are also real opportunities in areas outside traditional LEA crime analysis, public sector fraud and commercial fraud investigation. Areas such as market trading, anti- money laundering and credit card fraud are beginning to see real benefits of having predictive, live and visual analysis solutions.

Probably the simplest way to illustrate the benefit of using IBM analysis solutions outside the traditional crime analysis environment is from two real life examples, one from Dorset Police and the other Addison Lee, a London based taxi company

IBM Analytics is helping Dorset Police analyse Police training and assessment data to improve training effectiveness, optimising force spending thus providing the community with the best equipped officers to help improve public safety.

Addison Lee had a 5-10 per cent fraud to sales ratio on their 2,500 credit card transactions per day, there were 1,400 charge back refunds to customers and fines from the card provider per month with additional charges from card providers of £100,000. IBM i2 analysis solution capture the 9,000 daily business feeds providing an alert review with a maximum 4 minute turnaround. The outcome was a reduction to 0.6 per cent fraud to sales ratio and 60 charge backs of which 83 per cent were challenged. The result was a reduction in fraud loss and being moved off card providers hot list.

The

IBM

logo

is a

regi

ster

ed tr

adem

ark

of IB

M C

orp.

and

is u

sed

unde

r lic

ense

”.


INTERVIEW: LES VINS DE SYLVAIN

Westminster’s French vineyard

Where did your passion for wine come from?

It came from my family – my father was born in the heart of Burgundy, Hospices de Beaune, which is one of the most famous places in France and, indeed the world, for wine. Despite having grown up in Paris, I spent a lot of time in Burgundy following in the footsteps of my family before me in learning about wine. Not long after this, I moved to Bordeaux to pursue further studies of wine as I knew then that my future lay in the wine industry.

Who inspires you in the world of wine?

There are three individuals who particularly inspire me. Firstly, Philip Zucchino, a Californian who has a great respect and knowledge of French wine. Secondly, Bernard Rivals - former owner of Château Monlot St Emilion - for his success in producing one of my favourite Grand Cru wines and for his wonderful passion for the vines. And thirdly, Gary Vaynerchuk, a successful wine critic with a phenomenal presence on YouTube.

How do you get the most out of drinking a good bottle of wine?

Firstly, respect your wine!

Depending on the age of the bottle, make sure it has been stored in the correct conditions. Temperature is important as it can change the balance of the taste of the wine (too cold and it will freeze the components of the wine, and too warm will expand the fruits too much). The right temperature for a White should be 10-12 degrees and around 18 degrees for a Red. Care also needs to be taken when removing the cork, an old vintage will be more fragile. Don’t let this put you off though – if a cork breaks this does not necessarily mean your wine has been affected. Depending on the age of the wine, open at least 30 minutes before serving. It is always good to let the wine breathe in the bottle or in an appropriate decanter. Also, the glass plays an

important role so select the correct one.

The degustation is split into 4 parts: firstly, the aspect of the wine – the colour tells you a lot about the maturity and complexity; secondly, in the nose – this is where you will find all the scent of your wine; thirdly, the palette – you will discover the acidity, fruit, minerals and spice of your wine here; and fourthly, the finish - a short or long length depending on the power of the wine.

And finally – just enjoy it!

How do English wines compare to their foreign counterparts?

English wines are very good and are

getting better and better because there is now more investment in the industry. Surrey and Kent produce a sparkling wine which is, in my opinion, equal to a Crémant de Bourgogne. Recently, English wines were awarded an international gold medal which demonstrates just how far England’s wine industry has come.

After a brief decline in popularity during the 1990s, French wines are now back in vogue. What was the decline down to and how have they regained their popularity?

France became complacent with its leading position in the world in wine

Sylvain Berthélémé, owner of Les Vins de Sylvain, talks to Marcus Papadopoulos about the passion of wine and its place in Westminster

[email protected]+44 (0) 7942 070839

PRIVATE AND WHOLESALE IMPORTER AND DISTRIBUTOR OF FRENCH WINES

CremantChablisBordeaux Cote de ProvenceBurgundy R E S T A U R A N T S S P E C I A L O C C A S I O N S B A R S H O T E L S P R I V A T E C L I E N T S

www.lesvinsdesylvain.co.uk

Les Vins de SylvainF R E N C H W I N E S

Westminster

N O M I N I M U M O R D E R F R E E D E L I V E R Y I N L O N D O N

INTERVIEW: LES VINS DE SYLVAIN

producing. Coupled together with that was the emergence of New World Wines produced by countries such as Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, America and South America. Both factors helped to explain why French wines were on the decline 15-20 years ago. However, as a result of investment in the various French wine-making regions this provided a stimulus to reinvigorating their wines. Since 2000, we have seen France profit from incredible vintages due to the weather; for example, 2003, 2005 and 2009 pushed France to the forefront of the Wine industry.

When and how did you start supplying wines to people within government departments in Westminster?

My company, Les Vins de Sylvain, which was established in the autumn of 2010, has been supplying numerous departments for two years now. I started supplying wine to Richard Shepherd’s Langan’s Group, most famous for Langan’s Brasserie in Green Park and Shepherd’s Restaurant based in the political hub of Westminster. My Wine selection is simple, good quality, individual and competitively priced and personally chosen by myself – which sets me apart from my rivals.

And who do you supply to outside of Westminster?

I supply to different restaurants and wine bars including Gordon’s Wine Bar – the oldest wine bar in London situated on Embankment - , hotels including The Capital on Basil Street in Knightsbridge, and private clients and events across London, England, Ireland and a little step in Hong Kong.

Where are your cellars?

In the heart of Westminster, on the site of the old Marsham prison dating from 1816. The cellar lock is the original from the 1920s! So there’s a lot of history there!

How do you relate wine to politics?

I think the two go very well together – the more wine, the more political discussion! In 1855, Napoleon III directed the Bordeaux Chamber of Commerce to produce a ranking of the wines of Bordeaux, which remains largely in place to this day. Interestingly, Winston Churchill’s love of Pol Roger Champagne (through whose cellar it is estimated that more than 500 cases of Pol Roger had passed in the last ten years of his life!) meant that after his death the Château named the Cuvée Sir Winston Churchill after him.

What are your top wine tips?

Do not let price dictate your decision as prices increase with notoriety and complexity-something simple can be just as enjoyable; know your vintage – each region has its best vintage, for example 2005 Bordeaux is exceptional for the Cabernet / Merlot; have fun with wine and try new things – it’s as important to know what you don’t like as much as what you do.

Don’t depend on your supermarket for a good deal – independent wine dealers have great wines and offer good value, too; drink each wine at its prime; and take care to serve your wine properly – at the right temperature, let it breathe and get the right glass.

How would you sum up the joy of drinking wine?

For me, it stems from every step of the process in producing wine.

There is a lot of time and passion involved and the outcome is beautiful, complex and always different.

Quite simply speaking, wine is a remarkable product.


Nigel NelsonNelson’s Column

This is the conference season when all three party leaders will have to square a circle. Their mission – and

they have no choice but to accept it – will be to embrace the advantages of coalition government while simultaneously advancing the individual identities of their parties.

It will be the political equivalent of juggling skittles while standing on your head. But it is not in the electoral interests of any of them to do otherwise.

David Cameron needs the Coalition to keep his right-wingers in check. He has liberal tendencies himself – his passionate advocacy of gay marriage is an example – and it’s handy to hide behind the Liberals when throwing liberal policies about.

Nick Clegg needs to be in a coalition because out of one he and his party would be out of everything if the polls are anything to go by. His election strategy will be a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for partnership. And Ed Miliband knows that he might need the Lib Dems as Whitehall bedfellows after the next election.

In Birmingham last year, Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem ministers tried to deal with the ticklish issue of their identity crisis by including a tickle stick in every speech to take the pee out of the Tories. That repetitive Ken Doddery began to sound silly, though the rank-and-file seemed to like it.

I did, though, like Pensions minister Steve Webb’s joke. He had been told that people find pensions so complicated there are certain words he should avoid. Alas, one of them was pensions. So he wrote to David Cameron asking to be re-titled Minister for Retirement Solutions.

But expect more serious speeches in Brighton this year. After the Lib Dem’s century-old goal of House of Lords reform was scuppered, activists will expect revenge on the Tories which goes further

than just stopping the boundary changes which could deliver 20 more Conservative MPs.

Clegg has left it to lesser figures in the party to lay the groundwork for that. Which is why Julian Huppert, chair of the party’s transport committee, was able to say Lib Dems will not just fight rail fare increases but also block any attempts for a third runway at Heathrow.

There will be a lot of tub-thumping from both Cameron and Miliband about going for all out victory in 2015, but listen for the subtle drumbeat of how working with others is not so bad either.

Every political leader quickly learns that old Westminster adage that

the opposition is in front of you but your enemies are behind you. For both Cameron and Miliband, being in government with another party helps them control their own troops so manifestos are delivered without too many mutinous mutterings. Party conferences are the opportunity to get that message across to the foot soldiers.

That is easier for Cameron after more than two years of coalition than it is for Ed Miliband. Now fast forward to the negotiating table the day after the next election if no one party has secured an overall majority but the Labour leader has most MPs.

Nick Clegg told me that “if the British people, like they did last time, say no one lot has won, then I’ll be open to working with other parties.” Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? So I pressed him on whether he could do business with Ed Miliband. “Yes”, he said.

Now this is where it gets tricky. You would have a deputy prime minister with five years experience at the very top of government and a rookie PM still asking his way to the Number 10 lavatory. How could that work?

“I will never bring personal likes and dislikes into it,” Clegg replied. “I would treat anyone I work with in government with respect even if I don’t agree with them.”

Yes, yes, yes, but that’s not the issue, is it? Any new prime minister would feel vulnerable to a deputy in those circumstances. And vulnerable is not how prime minister’s like to feel. So it’s not a question of whether Nick could work with Ed but whether Ed could work with Nick. And the answer to that has to be an unequivocal no.

Those close to Ed Miliband told me as much. So the price of a Lib-Lab pact would be a new Lib Dem leader. Vince Cable, this could be your moment.

Keeping an eye on The People

A Coalition of checks

Ed Miliband knows

that he might need the Lib

Dems as Whitehall bedfellows after the

next election

“

“


Zetter’sONLINE

Z

Call us on 0845 505 4100

or email [email protected]

Reach out and contact the key individuals and organisations essential for

developing your idea, brand or business using the best in

business-to-government and business-to-business email marketing. With

our expert design, content guidance, and extensive contact database, we

will ensure you make the greatest impact on the right audience.

KNOW

DATA

Information

Technology

Local

Government

Human

Resources

Procurement

Health

Central

Government

Legal

Charities

KNOW your

audience

know-data.com

Data solutions

Email campaigns

Our database contains over 500,000 contacts from across the public,

private and third sectors, from every region across the UK. Developed

according to the needs of clients, new data will be collected to ensure

you reach the newest and most relevant customers.

Each email delivery constitutes one part of an overall campaign, in

sent.

MarketingAs experts in marketing, KnowData can provide you with as much

support and advice as you need to create your perfect bespoke

marketing email and supporting print and website material.

Education

Documents

WILLIAM HAGUE ON THE CHALLENGES TO BRITAIN FIRST MARY