Homelessness Up As Cuts Take Effect

Homelessness is on the rise in the wake of the recession and government cuts to housing benefit, official figures show.












In the three months to June there was a 17 per cent rise to 11,820 in the number of households accepted by local authorities as in priority need of rehousing, compared to the same quarter last year.

The figures show that on almost all measures homelessness is now rising, reversing a trend that has seen more or less continuous declines since 2003, according to Crisis, the homelessness charity.

A report commissioned by Crisis and carried out by academics at York and Heriot-Watt universities to coincide with the figures warned the “worst is yet to come” after the combined effect of the economic downturn and significant cuts to housing benefit takes hold.

“Government reforms, in combination with the pressures of the economic downturn seem certain to increase all forms of homelessness, from rough sleepers on our streets to homeless people hidden out of sight,” said Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick of Heriot-Watt’s institute for housing.

The latest figures are the first since cuts to the local housing allowance for new claimants – an allowance that determines housing benefit levels – were introduced in April. There has been a big percentage rise, although small numerical increase, from 1,460 to 2,130 in the number of households accepted as homeless because a private rented tenancy has come to an end.

The report for Crisis notes that during the last big housing recession in the early 1990s, homelessness fell as lower house prices eased access for first time buyers, releasing homes for rent.

That is unlikely to happen this time, the report says, as available lettings in the social rented sector are down and first time buyers still face difficulty in getting mortgages.

On top of big housing benefit cuts, the government is moving towards more “flexible” tenancies in social housing while pushing up rents for new homes to 80 per cent of market levels. Both moves will weaken the safety net function of the social rented sector, the report says.

Leslie Morphy, chief executive of Crisis, called on the government to reverse the housing benefit cuts and withdraw its plans to no longer pay benefit on actual housing costs, instead providing an allowance. “We need the government to change course now or risk returning us to the days of countless lives facing the debilitating effect of homelessness,” she said.

Grant Shapps, housing minister, urged those threatened with homelessness to seek help as early as possible, arguing that a wide range of support remained available to people struggling to stay in their homes.

Interest In Apprenticeships Soars As Universities Say Fees Will Put Too Many Students Off

Universities joined the growing consensus against the rise in tuition fees today as figures revealed thousands are seeking alternative routes through apprenticeships.


















Falling fees: Students at some universities could see their tuition fee drop as part of a government incentive to lower the cost.

Higher education establishments across the country are vowing to drop their fees to below £7,500 after the Government announced incentives for those that charge lower amounts.

The move comes after ministers announced that English institutions who charged £7,500 or lower would be able to bid for a share in 20,000 funded places.

The decision has seen 12 universities, all of whom were planning to charge up to £9,000, express an interest in lowering their fees.

The majority considering the move are believed to be former polytechnics, including the University of Derby and University of Hertfordshire.

Despite the move, figures released yesterday suggested that the rise in fees will result in a drop of 7.5 per cent in the university enrollment rate for males and nearly 5 per cent for female students.

Ministers, who had expected just a handful of elite institutions to charge £9,000, are desperate to drive fees down to reduce the burden of the student loan on the public purse.

The move will also help reduce the mountain of crippling debt for some graduates.

However, it drew widespread criticism yesterday and accusations that the Coalition’s policy is in complete disarray.


















Attack: Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students, said the revelation is yet another example of the Coalition's shambolic policies.

It comes just one week before the admissions process for autumn 2012 is due to start. This means thousands will be expected to choose universities without knowing the cost.

Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students, said the revelation is yet another example of the Coalition’s shambolic policies.

‘With students preparing to submit university applications in just a matter of weeks, the shambles of the Government’s fees arrangements has left places being auctioned off to the lowest bidder and universities looking to cut corners,’ he said.

‘As a direct result of ministers’ bungled funding policies, prospective students have been left in the dark as to what universities will charge and now face an agonising wait for clarity over their future options.

‘We need urgent action from ministers to put right shambolic policies that risk doing permanent damage to students’ prospects.’

The disarray among the university fees comes as figures revealed that interest in apprenticeship vacancies has soared rapidly since the turn of the year.















On the up: Searches for 'apprentice vacancies' are up by 400%, while the term 'apprenticeship' has seen an increase of 625.















Rises: The National Apprenticeship Service website (blue) has seen a 50 per cent rise in visits year on year, while notgoingtouni.co.uk, has seen hits soar by 150 per cent.

Statistics released by internet analysts Hitwise showed that since January 2011, searches for 'apprenticeship vacancies' have soared by 425 per cent, while the term 'apprenticeship' is up 62 per cent.

And the National Apprenticeship Service website has seen a 50 per cent rise in visits year on year.

Another website, notgoingtouni.co.uk, has seen hits soar by 150 per cent since this time last year.

The figures also revealed that the most popular type of apprenticeships searched for were that of plumber, engineer or electrician.

And the most popular companies searched for included British Gas, NHS and British Telecom.

Darling: EU Must Get A Grip On Greece

The European Union must "get a grip" of Greece's economic woes before the contagion spreads, ex-chancellor Alistair Darling has said.

In a gloomy assessment of Europe's economic prospects, Mr Darling told Sky News the EU had to find a solution to the problems in Greece.

He warned a failure to tackle the problem would have a "damaging impact" on European banks and governments.

"That's why the EU has got to be realistic and at long last do something that actually fixes the problem and not this series of short-term fixes that keep failing, that keep coming back," he told Jeff Randall Live.

"This is what they've been doing now for the last 18 months and it doesn't work."

Mr Darling offered the pessimistic analysis of EU economies in an interview also critical of former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.











Economic troubles provoked clashes on the streets of Greece.

He was speaking in advance of the publication of Back From The Brink, a memoir of his time as chancellor during the financial crisis.

The former chancellor said he had to elaborate on his fraught relationships within the government in order to tell the story of the turmoil that engulfed the markets in 2008.

He said Mr Blair and Mr Brown had been allowed to assume too much control.

"In the 1990s, we were happy in some ways to let Tony and Gordon run the show - it wasn't quite a dictatorship - they made the changes Labour was desperately needing to make but hadn't done so.

"The problem was the decision-making became increasingly centralised," he said, adding policies on tuition fees and the economy would have benefited from wider debate.

"Collective discussion, the benefit of getting a combined wisdom, is I think something we didn't pay enough attention to," he added.











The ex-chancellor explained his criticism of Gordon Brown.

Asked if Ed Balls was among those who unleashed the "forces of hell" in negative briefings about him during the financial crisis, Mr Darling refused to attack his Labour colleague.

He said he backed the whole Labour front-bench, including the shadow chancellor.

Mr Darling said he acknowledged Labour did not always get it right in government and expressed regret more had not been done to fully implement welfare reform.

He cited the minimum wage as one of his party's greatest achievements.

An MP since 1987, Mr Darling was chancellor between 2007-2010 and also served as secretary of state for work and pensions, transport and trade and industry.

His outspoken remarks since leaving office are considered to be a contrast to the more low-key style he adopted in government.

City Chiefs 'Won't Ask For Any More Trams Funding'

City chiefs today pledged to take Edinburgh's trams to St Andrew Square without having to find more money - as calls grow for an immediate public inquiry into the troubled project.







Council chief executive Sue Bruce insisted that the £776 million estimate of the cost includes a "sufficiently large" risk allowance - and said she does not expect to come back to councillors and ask them to approve more funding.

But she stopped short of giving a guarantee that they would definitely not require more money.

Labour councillors called for the Scottish Government to start a public inquiry into the whole project immediately.

The move came after councillors agreed to reverse last week's shock decision to only take the tram to Haymarket and instead take it as far as St Andrew Square.

Mrs Bruce told the Evening News: "We know there is nervousness and uncertainty because, although we have done all of the things you would expect us to do, when you dig up roads you can find things you don't expect, so we have left an enormous risk pot to cover that."

The estimate includes a 0.8 per cent, or £1.1m, "risk contingency" for off-street work between the airport and Haymarket, as well as a 71.8 per cent, or £30m, risk allowance for the on-street work from Haymarket to York Place.

When asked if members of the public should be confident that more money will not be needed for the project, she said: "They should have faith that £776m is our estimate of the project to St Andrew Square.

"We do not expect to have to come back to ask for more money. We think it is the best estimate we can come to for completing the work."

After the decision was approved, councillors urged the Scottish Government to get on with a public inquiry.

A spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said last week that it would happen "once there is greater clarity about the direction of the project".

Cllr Andrew Burns, leader of the Labour group, said: "I do not see why a public inquiry cannot start right away and I would urge the Scottish Government to get on with that."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We recognise the complexities and difficult circumstances that the council has faced as it seeks to make the right decisions for the people of Edinburgh.

"It is appropriate that ministers now give full consideration to all of the factors before making any further decisions."

The Liberal Democrats won support from their SNP coalition partners to get the project nodded through, despite the Tories calling for the contract to be cancelled.

City leader Jenny Dawe hit out at Labour and Conservative councillors, who came together last week to force through the shock decision to stop the tram line at Haymarket.

She said: "To play political football with the citizens of this city shows irresponsibility of a level never before seen in this Chamber.

Debt Crisis: Is The Great Reckoning Upon Us?

Gordon Brown: one of the chief architects.

In response to the crisis of 2008, UK policy-makers did five key things:

1. They bailed out a number of banks that had inadequate capital.
2. They insisted that banks that were not bailed out had to raise additional capital privately.
3. They raised spending, by around £110 billion (mainly by continuing with previously-scheduled large. spending rises even though the situation had changed).
4. They enacted a temporary tax cut (around £12.5 billion).
5. They printed money (around £200 billion).

Of these policies, the first three were serious errors. The last (money-printing) was done well, and was the key reason for the growth from mid-2009 to mid-2010. The temporary tax cut was in principle a good idea, though it would have been better to have cut income tax than VAT. And if we had not done the ill-conceived spending rises, we could have made the temporary tax cut at least three times (perhaps six times) as big. Extensive academic studies have demonstrated that temporary tax cuts provide much more effective stimulus than spending rises (indeed, since spending rises may be believed to be permanent – as they often are – they can make households and businesses believe that the medium-term growth outlook is worse (as it would be if the public spending stayed up) and thus actually damage growth even in the short term.

However, although raising spending was an error, much the worst error was bailing out the banks. As of 2008, the situations in the UK, Spain and Ireland were all fairly similar: each had had a serious housing bubble; each had banking sectors of above 400 per cent of GDP; none of them had particular high government debt; all had government deficits headed towards 10 per cent of GDP. There was no intrinsic way for us to know that Ireland would be very rapidly ruined by its decision to bail out the banks, whilst in Britain it would be more drawn out, and in Spain matters would be somewhere in between. Irish nominal GDP shrank by around 20 per cent in 2008/9. (The worst recession of the past century in Britain was that of the early 1920s, when nominal GDP shrank by around 28 per cent.)

Bailing out the banks meant that the governments of Britain, Ireland, Spain and elsewhere took onto the public balance sheet the liabilities of the banking sector. (I occasionally read articles suggesting that this is true in a metaphorical sense, because of the large deficits run. No. It is true in a literal sense. According to National Statistics, the liabilities of RBS and Lloyds are UK government liabilities.) This overstretch in the government balance sheet is a key reason the government needs to cut the deficit as quickly as it does – without the commitments to the banks, we would have been able to run larger deficits for longer (especially if those deficits were the result of temporary tax cuts).

I would have opposed bailing out the banks even if I had been certain it would “work” in its own terms. It is immoral to tax poor people to keep rich people rich, despite their bad investment choices, and it destroys the functioning of capitalism. But there was always the danger that – as in Ireland – they wouldn’t work in any sense, but would simply bankrupt the governments involved. The crisis of 2008/9 was not simply a liquidity crisis. It was not the result of market irrationality. It was not even simply a matter of insolvency arising from past losses. In a number of cases the business models of financial institutions were no longer going concerns – they were value-destroying enterprises, not value-creating ones. This was not simply a matter of gambles with fancy financial derivatives. Even before the bonds market madness of 2005-7, around 30 per cent of the gross income of European retail banking came from mortgages. But mortgage volumes remain way down on their mid-2000s levels, and even when they come back the value of transactions will be much lower. The only way a number of these business could continue without significant restructuring of the sort that would occur under administration is for governments to provide an ongoing stream of subsidies.

Recent developments in financial markets suggest that we may soon face a Great Reckoning for the policy errors of 2008/9. Some bank shares are now worth less than before nationalisation; the cost of insuring the debts of some banks has recently been higher than the 2008 peaks. Governments have been arrogant in assuming themselves capable of bailing out some of these monster banks, when they had made such bad losses. They have been deluded in assuming that significant structural change was not required in the banking sector. There is now a significant risk that, around Europe in particular, many state-owned banks will go bust, despite government backing. If it happens, this is likely to bring down governments – indeed, may even lead to constitutional overthrows in two or three countries. The consequence could be another recession as bad to twice as bad as that of 2008/9.

In countries such as Britain and Ireland and Spain, that ought to have been OK. Public debt – setting aside banking sector liabilities – is not at critical levels even now. We ought to be able to cut taxes temporarily, increase deficits, and see ourselves through in the normal way. Unfortunately, because of government over-commitments in the banking sector, we will struggle to maintain solvency even by cutting spending as aggressively as is politically deliverable.

A further phase of recession (indeed, even simply tepid growth) will necessitate further spending cuts. The UK political debate is still stuck in an absurd situation in which a supposedly-serious political party, egged on by quite a section of the press, still wants to pretend that the alternative to the Coalition’s programme would be to cut spending less and cut slower. The truth is that we are likely to have to cut spending more and faster. Indeed, there is a chance that we shall yet be forced to cut spending much faster – including on sacred cows like health – because a further phase of recession could well lead financial markets to lose confidence in our government’s bonds, as they have lost confidence in the bonds of other governments.

Much of this was avoidable. We did not need to bail out the banks, bankrupting multiple governments in the process. There were alternatives, such as imposing debt-equity swaps. We did not need to whack up spending, undermining long-term growth rates. We could have kept spending under control and instead cut taxes.

Four years after the financial crisis began, in the summer of 2007, we still send tens of billions more, every few months, to bail out the banks – though these days we have rebranded our banking sector bailouts “sovereign debt bailouts”. The patience of taxpayers with such nonsense is an affront to democracy – No. More than that: democracy has failed, and in a number of European states political upheaval may (justly) be part of a Great Reckoning.

Perhaps we shall muddle through, for a little while yet, with policy errors simply leading to hidden damage and injustice – as usual. But if, despite the trillions poured into them, large government-backed banks now go bust, dragging down their states’ solvency in the process, the bailouts of 2008/9 will go down as the greatest economic folly in history. And I shall be bitter and ungracious enough to say: I told you so.

School Dinners To Rise By 17%, Warns Consumer Watchdog

Parents will have to pay up to 25% more for their children’s school dinners, a survey has found.













Consumer watchdog Which? discovered the price is rising in two-thirds of schools across the country this year – while the quality of food could plummet.

Parents would rather give their children packed lunches as they believe them to be cheaper and their children do not like school dinners, according to the research. Schools in Poole are the most expensive in the country at an average of £2.50.

But Doncaster Council has increased prices by 17% to between £1.70 and £2 a meal while Lewisham has upped theirs by 14%, from £1.40 to £1.60.

Bolton saw the biggest increase at 25%, although its prices still remain the lowest in the country at £1.25.

It is estimated that 55% of students would need to take school meals in order to keep costs down.

But the research just 45% of pupils in England have them. Richard Lloyd of Which? said yesterday: “It will come as an unwelcome surprise to hard-pressed families to see some local authorities increasing prices well above inflation.

“Meals in most areas are still a relatively low-cost and low-hassle way to provide a decent lunch for your kids.

“But if schools cannot find ways to protect the extra funding that has gone to school meals and increase the numbers taking them, there’s a real risk of even more hikes or a drop in standards, undoing progress made in the past five years.”

Pensions Row Could Bring First Teachers' Strike Since The 80s

Teachers in Scotland's schools could be set to strike for the first time since the 1980s in protest against changes to their pensions.
The country's largest teaching union, the EIS, is expected to begin balloting members in the coming weeks over strike action in response to reforms to public sector pensions.







Scottish Government spokesman: "We believe the UK government must reconsider".

Union leaders claim the changes will see teachers forced to contribute more to their pensions and work longer before they retire.

Changes to the way pensions are calculated will also see teachers receiving less, according to the EIS.

Calls for a strike ballot have come from the union's influential strategy sub-committee.

Should a ballot be approved by the union's executive, teachers at all local authority nursery, primary, secondary and special schools would be asked to vote on possible strike action, which is expected to take the form of an initial one-day walkout.

If it went ahead it would be the first time since 1986 that a national teachers' strike has taken place in Scotland.

Ronnie Smith, general secretary of the EIS, said: "At the recent EIS annual general meeting, Scottish teachers sent a clear message that their patience with attacks on their standard of living is exhausted.

"At a time of imposed pay freezes on public sector pay, coupled with soaring prices for food, fuel, clothing and transport, teachers are not prepared to accept further erosion in their living standards. For hard-pressed teachers, the prospect of paying more of their salary into a pension scheme with the promise of working longer and getting far less at the end just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back."

Eileen Prior, executive director of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC), told teachers not to expect any sympathy.

She said: "Parents are going to be very concerned about the prospect of strike action. I suspect the response is going to be one where there's not a huge amount of sympathy for teachers.

"There's a feeling that everyone is being squeezed. The reaction I'm getting from parents is they feel that teachers are getting a pretty good deal."

The EIS said the recommendation for a strike ballot from its strategy sub-committee was a "warning" to ministers not to ignore its members.

While pension reform is a matter reserved for the UK government, any changes north of the Border would require the support of the Scottish Government.

However, finance secretary John Swinney has voiced criticism of Westminster's approach to public sector pension reform.

Labour's shadow education secretary Ken Macintosh said: "The SNP government has a very serious obligation to parents and pupils to ensure we do not return to the type industrial action which Scotland's schools saw in the 1980s.

"It is absolutely critical that changes are negotiated properly, and it would be completely wrong for ministers to try and trade pension rights for salary cuts."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Public sector pensions must be affordable and sustainable but we do not believe the UK government's proposals represent the correct course of action.

"We believe that the UK government must reconsider its proposals before seeking to impose significant changes on public service staff at this time.

"The Scottish Government has embarked upon a series of meetings with other public sector employers and unions as to how we address this significant issue."

According to the EIS, indications from England and Wales show pension contributions may rise by 0.6 per cent of pay for those earning less than £26,000 and up to 2 per cent for those earning between £40,000 and £75,000.

Parents Paying £77,000 'Premium' For Homes Near Top State Schools

Parents are paying ‘premiums’ of on average £77,000 to buy homes near leading state schools, research out today suggests.
















Pricey: Catchment area of the Henrietta Barnett school (pictured) has homes with an average price of £655,429.

Property prices within sought-after catchment areas are 35 per cent higher than in the rest of the UK, with an average asking price of £298,378.

The most expensive catchment area of a state school in Britain’s top ten surrounds all-girls grammar Henrietta Barnett, in Barnet, north-west London, where the average house price is £655,429.

The premiums have soared from an average of £20,000 in just four years.

And rent in the catchment areas of the top 50 state schools – at an average of £944 a month – is 7.8 per cent higher than in the rest of the country. For the catchment areas of six of them, rental prices are as high as £1,500 a month.

But the premiums are still cheaper than most private school fees, which can top £30,000 a year.

The research is likely to reignite the bitter row over school ‘selection by mortgage’ rather than ability.

The phenomenon has prompted some councils to adopt controversial lotteries – effectively picking names from a hat – to give children from poorer homes an equal chance of getting a place at a top school.











The research, from property website PrimeLocation.com, is based on average asking prices in July this year and GCSE results taken from 2010.

It shows a handful of the top schools are in areas with typical house prices more than twice the national average of £221,110.

These include St Olave’s and St Saviour’s Grammar in Orpington, Kent, ranked second in the UK, where house prices average £592,471. Notably, house prices in the area around the top-rated Bishop Wordsworth’s Grammar, in Salisbury, are just below the average for leading schools at £286,112.

Nigel Lewis, property analyst at PrimeLocation.com, says: ‘For many years now the challenges of the catchment area-based lottery for state schools have vexed millions of parents across the UK – and our research highlights how much it can cost to get your child into the ideal school.’

n The first 24 ‘free schools’ are to receive £130million between them from the Government to cover their start-up costs this year.

Among those getting state backing is the Maharishi School, in Ormskirk, Lancashire, where children as young as four will be given meditation classes.

Asylum Seekers Are Lured To The UK By Its 'Enormous' Benefits, Says Calais Mayor In Blistering Attack On Britain

Britain's ‘enormous’ state handouts to asylum seekers were furiously criticised yesterday – by the Mayor of Calais.

Natacha Bouchart said these payouts were the lure for thousands of foreigners using the French port as a staging point to cross the Channel illegally.















'Disgusted': Mayor Natacha Bouchart.

She said the UK government’s policy was ‘imposing’ migrants on the town, costing the local economy millions.

Mrs Bouchart, 45, a member of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party, said she was so disgusted by what was going on that she refused to have any meetings with British government representatives.

She said the British system was predominantly to blame for thousands of Africans, eastern Europeans and Asians trying to clamber aboard lorries and trains in Calais every day.

‘Requesting asylum is easier with them (the British) than in France. The asylum seeker is given accommodation and receives up to £40 a week according to

their case, when the annual income of the average Eritrean is around $200 (£135).

‘That seems enormous and it’s attractive to them.’

In Britain, asylum seekers can receive payments as soon as a claim is lodged. In France, an asylum seeker generally is given nothing for six months.

That is because the French bureaucratic system means it routinely takes a minimum of six months to have a claim for asylum – and with it the opportunity to receive state support – accepted.

Once accepted, the claimant can receive a range of benefits – but almost all prefer to try to reach Britain and secure immediate benefits.













Destination Britain: Some of the thousands of would-be asylum seekers in Calais.

Married asylum-seeking couples in the UK receive £66.13 a week, while single people get up to £42.16. They are also entitled to free NHS care, housing and education for any children.

Home Office Minister Phil Woolas has been seeking closer cooperation with France in the hope of preventing the crisis in Calais from escalating.

Ministers have been alarmed by figures showing the number of migrants caught trying to reach Britain by stowing away on lorries at Calais has doubled over the last year to more than 2,000 a month.

The count of 6,031 in the first three months of this year compares with 2,919 caught by port security services trying to gain access to trucks queueing for ferries between January and March 2008.

The pressure on the port of Calais is being matched at the Channel Tunnel terminal outside the town, which has reported a 50 per cent rise in illegal migrants over last year. Most are trying to board lorries waiting for places on freight trains.

Mrs Bouchart said she had received many requests for a meeting with UK officials to attempt to sort out the mess.

‘I’ve never followed them up because I consider them provocative. To receive in the city hall a representative of the British governmentis to support what it imposes on us.’

The mayor pointed out that the Calais Chamber of Trade was having to pay £12million a year to secure the port area – money she suggested the French government should provide.










Calling for a ‘change in attitude’, Mrs Bouchart said the current build-up of UK-bound foreigners was ‘untenable’.

‘Each day the town of Calais finds itself under psychological pressure because of the presence of the migrants.

‘That blocks our economic development. That stops some businesses from establishing themselves and that costs a lot.’

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: ‘The Mayor of Calais is right that the long-term chaos in our immigration system, from badly-protected borders to the Home Office not sending an officer to many appeal hearings, encourages people to try their luck.

‘The answer for Britain and the people of Calais is a well-run immigration system with a proper Border Police Force.’

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, said: ‘Gallic logic has reached the inescapable conclusion that Britain is a soft touch for asylum seekers.

‘You only have to say the word asylum and you have an 80 per cent chance of staying in Britain, more often than not illegally.’

In response, Mr Woolas said: ‘The illegal migrants in Calais are not queueing to get into Britain – they have been locked out by one of the toughest border crossings in the world. These successful controls have been possible thanks to the close co-operation of the French government.

‘Benefits are only available to those who play by the rules, work hard, pay taxes and learn to speak English.

‘I have made it clear that those trying to cheat our system will not be tolerated, which is why last year UK Border Agency staff worked tirelessly at our French and Belgium controls – stopping more than 28,000 attempts to cross the Channel illegally.’

Foreign Aid HAS Been Wasted, Says Cameron But Insists Raising Spending To £12bn Is 'Essential'

David Cameron will today admit that millions of pounds of foreign aid has been ‘wasted’, but insist this is not a reason to turn off the tap.

The Prime Minister, on a curtailed tour of Africa, will hit out at those in his own party who criticise his decision to pour billions more into foreign aid at a time of cutbacks at home.

In a speech in Lagos, Nigeria, he will declare: ‘The aid sceptics are wrong. Aid is essential. It can work and we are making it work.’














Trip for trade: David Cameron holds a press conference with South African President Jacob Zuma in Pretoria - he is due to speak in Lagos, Nigeria before returning to the UK.

Mr Cameron will acknowledge that critics of the plan to raise aid spending by 34 per cent to £12billion have ‘powerful arguments’.

He will say: ‘There are some people back at home who don’t like Britain’s aid commitment.

‘They see us make painful cuts to budgets at home and wonder why we are increasing our spending abroad.

And they look at where some of our aid money has gone in recent years – on the wrong priorities and into the wrong hands – and think: this is all being wasted.

They have a point. Some of our money has been wasted. But that’s not an argument to stop aid. It’s an argument to change the way aid is delivered and that’s what we’re doing.’




















Mr Cameron will say that aid should be used to boost infrastructure and trade to ‘move people from dependence to independence’.

He will call on Africa’s politicians to show more leadership in tackling corruption and lifting trade barriers.

He will say ‘this can be Africa’s moment’ if the continent can tackle the challenges of boosting trade and democracy.

Mr Cameron is accompanied by a 30-strong business delegation, including Barclays boss Bob Diamond, representatives of multinationals such as Vodafone and a number of private equity tycoons.

In South Africa yesterday, he said: ‘It is right for the British Prime Minister to be out there with British businesses trying to drum up exports and growth for our economy.

'It is what I have done in India, China and now Africa.’

He paid tribute to Nelson Mandela who celebrated his 93rd birthday yesterday, saying it was ‘a great honour’ to be in the country to toast the former anti-apartheid leader, whom he described as ‘an inspiration to the world’.














Meet and greet: David Cameron offers a gift to Bishop Desmond Tutu during his trip to South Africa - before he returns home early to deal with the phone hacking scandal.

The £650m Apology: Forget Our Ailing Education System, That's What Britain's Giving To Pakistani Schools To Make Amends For Our Imperial Past

David Cameron vowed to hand hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money plus vital military secrets to Pakistan yesterday to make amends for offending the Muslim nation last year.

The Prime Minister pledged to invest £650million in Pakistani schools at a time when the education budget at home is being cut.

Britain is also to give highly sensitive military technology to combat roadside bombs to the Pakistani security services, which are widely blamed for funding and arming the Taliban.




















In a huge gamble with the lives of British troops in Afghanistan, Mr Cameron agreed to spend millions more on a centre of excellence for the country’s soldiers and spies near Peshawar, a hotbed of militancy.

The gesture came after Mr Cameron sparked a diplomatic rift last year when he accused the country of ‘looking both ways’ on terrorism.

The technology deal sparked fears that the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, would hand details to the Taliban, enabling them to build more effective improvised explosive devices (IEDs).




















The huge cash injection for schools by the Department for International Development will make Pakistan the UK’s biggest recipient of overseas aid.

It is designed to get four million children into the classroom – 17million currently get no schooling. Pakistan spends just 1.5 per cent of its national income on schools but is placing billion-pound orders for six Chinese submarines and 36 fighter aircraft.

The UK will have no control of the curriculum in schools receiving funding, meaning taxpayers could see their money pumped into madrassas peddling extremism.

Mr Cameron defended the payments, saying it was ‘in our interest’ to help Pakistan.

He said: ‘If Pakistan is a success we’ll have a good friend to trade and invest and deal with.

‘If we fail we’ll have all the problems of migration, of extremism, problems that we don’t want to see. So it’s in our interest that Pakistan succeeds.’

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said he believed a ‘root cause’ of terrorism was illiteracy.

But Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘Particularly at the moment when we’ve got no money, there’s absolutely no justification for increasing the amounts that we give to other countries.

‘That is especially the case with countries that can afford to spend billions on defence. If they can afford submarines they can afford to educate their own people.

‘We need to concern ourselves with our own schools because countries around the world are overtaking us in educational attainment.’

In a speech to university students, Mr Cameron vowed to get over the ‘tensions’ sparked by his comments last year and create a ‘new start’ in relations with Pakistan.

But he also said Pakistan had to raise taxes and stamp out corruption to justify British generosity. ‘Understandably, the British people want to know every penny we spend is going to the right places.

‘I need to convince them that it is. But my job is made more difficult when people in Britain look at Pakistan, a country that receives millions of pounds of our aid money, and see weaknesses in terms of government capacity and waste.’

Mr Cameron, who was accompanied on his one-day visit by Tory party chairman Baroness Warsi, who is of Pakistani origin, ducked questions about whether he could guarantee that the ISI will not hand the anti-IED technology to the Taliban.

The £650million investment for Pakistan schools will come out of the existing aid budget.

■ The reputation of Britain’s international aid programme is at risk because of lax controls to prevent fraud and corruption, the National Audit Office warned last night.

It said the Department for International Development was doing too little to prevent taxpayers’ money being siphoned off by corrupt officials in deprived countries.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell insisted that weaknesses in the systems set up by Labour had been addressed.







PM blames British Empire for 'many of the world's problems'

David Cameron sparked a backlash last night after telling a Pakistani audience that Britain is responsible for ‘many’ of the world’s problems.

The Prime Minister sought to blame the British Empire for the situation in Kashmir which has been a running sore in Pakistan’s relations with India since partition in 1947.

But he laid himself open to the charge of running down Britain on an overseas trip.

At a university in Islamabad, the Prime Minister was asked how Britain could help end the row over Kashmir.
















David Cameron inspecting a guard of honour at the Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani's residence in Islamabad.
















Mr Cameron signing an Enhanced Strategic Dialogue document with Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani.

He replied: ‘I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.’

His gaffe could lay Britain open to legal action by relatives of those killed in Kashmir or other conflicts sparked by the end of empire.

Mr Cameron’s claim is not even accurate about the fate of Kashmir, which has been the subject of three major wars between India and Pakistan in 1947, 1965 and 1999.

The disputed province, which has a predominantly Muslim population, would probably have joined Pakistan when it broke away from India had it not been for the intervention of the state’s Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh, who insisted on remaining with India.














David Cameron and Baroness Warsi visiting the Faisal Mosque in Islamabad

Sean Gabb, of the Libertarian Alliance, said yesterday: ‘It’s a valid historical point that some problems stem from British foreign policy in the 19th and 20th Centuries, but should we feel guilty about that? I fail to see why we should.

‘Some of these problems came about because these countries decided they did not want to be part of the British empire. They wanted independence, they got it, they should sort out their problems instead of looking to us.’

A No 10 official said: ‘Sometimes a bit of humility goes a long way.’

David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet Drawn Into Expenses Scandal

Senior members of David Cameron’s shadow cabinet have been implicated in the parliamentary expenses scandal.













Michael Gove and Andrew Lansley “flipped” properties designated as their second homes to claim allowances for multiple properties at taxpayers’ expense.

The tactic has been criticised by another member of the shadow cabinet.

Other senior Conservatives who made questionable claims included Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the House of Commons, who oversees the party’s expenses policy. He was officially warned over his gardening bills after attempting to claim more than £7,000 in two years.

David Willetts, the shadow universities secretary, claimed more than £100 for workmen to replace 25 light bulbs at his home. Oliver Letwin, the chairman of the Conservatives’ policy team, claimed more than £2,000 to replace a leaking pipe under a tennis court.

Two members of the Conservative front bench, Mr Gove and Cheryl Gillan, have agreed to repay some expense claims.

Mr Cameron this morning called on Tory MPs to explain any dubious claims and publicly apologise for any "mistakes", saying it was "not good enough" to claim they had just been following the rules.

"What I want is for Conservative MPs, as with other MPs, to come out and explain why they claimed what they claimed, to admit to any mistakes, if there have been mistakes, and collectively to say 'Look, this system was wrong, we took part in it, we operated it'," he said.

"It's not good enough to say we obeyed the rules. We need a big acknowledgement that we are sorry that this happened and it needs to change."

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said that the public had the right to be angry at MPs of all parties over the expenses scandal.

"I think voters can differentiate between what they think are legitimate expenses for those who have to have a second home to represent them in Parliament and what the public would regard as frivolous or luxury expenses," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"There is an element of common sense in that and I think voters can see that even when MPs may not have been able to see it."

Mr Duncan, one of the leading Tories whose claims have been thrust into the spotlight by the latest revelations, called on all MPs to apologise. "The House of Commons is in such a mess, these allowances have got to stop," he said.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said that a “culture of abuse” had developed among MPs claiming expenses. Lord Naseby, a Conservative peer and former deputy speaker, said that the standing of Parliament had been brought “right down into the pits” and there may be a need for an immediate general election.

The Daily Telegraph has obtained details of expenses claims made by MPs from all political parties over the past five years.

The expenses scandal detailed over the past three days has hit the Cabinet, extended to the entire Government and is now shown to stretch to the highest levels of the Conservative party.

The Telegraph Expenses Files on the shadow Cabinet disclose that:

* Michael Gove, the shadow education secretary, spent more than £7,000 in five months furnishing a London property in 2006 before “flipping” his second home designation to a new property he bought in Surrey. He then claimed more than £13,000 in stamp duty and other fees from his Parliamentary expenses for this property. Mr Gove’s behaviour surprised colleagues because the former journalist was only elected in 2005 and is close to Mr Cameron.

* Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, spent thousands of pounds renovating a thatched Tudor country cottage shortly before selling it. He redecorated inside and out with premium paint at a cost of £2,000 and re-shingled the driveway. He then “flipped” his expenses to a Georgian flat in London where he claimed for thousands of pounds in furnishings including a Laura Ashley sofa.

* Francis Maude, the shadow minister for the cabinet office, attempted to claim the mortgage interest on his family home in Sussex. This arrangement was rejected by the Fees Office. Two years later, Mr Maude bought a flat in London a few minutes walk from a house he already owned. He then rented out the other property and began claiming on the new flat: the taxpayer has since covered nearly £35,000 in mortgage interest payments.

* Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, claimed thousands of pounds to renovate a London flat 17 miles from his family home. Mr Grayling already owned three properties within the M25 but still bought the flat with loans subsidised by the taxpayer. He then claimed for work on the property for up to a year after it was carried out. This enabled him to claim close to the maximum amount allowable under the expenses system during different years.

* Cheryl Gillan, the shadow Welsh secretary, claimed for dog food on her expenses. Last night, she said that she would repay the money.

The disclosures underline the cross-party nature of the parliamentary expenses scandal. Over the past few days, the Telegraph has exposed the exploitation of the allowances by senior Labour figures including members of the Cabinet. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, has condemned the “flipping” of the designation of second homes by ministers.

“The idea was always that ministers were deemed to have their primary residence in London when they were members of the government,” he said. He called for a “hard and fast rule” about what constitutes an MP’s primary home.

Mr Cameron said last week that claims by Conservative MPs that were outside the rules would be “looked at”. “They just have to explain themselves,” he said. “That’s what all my MPs are going to have to do, that’s what I will have to do and I think that’s what the public deserve – they are angry about it and they want it sorted out.”

Not all members of the shadow Cabinet were implicated. Mr Cameron and William Hague, his deputy and shadow foreign secretary, both had relatively straightforward claims. George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, claimed for a chauffeur using his office allowance.

Cutting Benefits Of Single Parents Will Increase Number Of Kids In Poverty

Slashing benefits of single parents who don't look for work will increase child poverty and family hardship, a report has warned.

Gingerbread, the charity that represents lone parents, wants ministers to abandon the "big stick" of benefit sanctions proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill.















Interviewing 200 single parents it found most were keen to work but felt hampered by lack of support from Government and employers.

Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said: "Single parents are branded bad mothers if they are not there for their children and derided as benefits scroungers if they stay home - they feel caught in a trap."

The Government says getting single parents to work is the best route out of poverty.

But Gingerbread claims welfare reforms will make it tougher for single parents to juggle work with raising a family.

There are 1.9 million single parents in the UK who care for about three million children. Until last year, those with children aged 16 or younger could claim Income Support and weren't forced to seek work.

They had to attend "Work Focused Interviews" at the Jobcentre twice a year to discuss returning to work.

Since then, the Government has introduced a major change, gradually moving single parents with children aged seven and over from Income Support on to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

To claim JSA they must attend Jobcentre Plus every two weeks and show they are actively looking for work. Claimants who fail to meet these conditions or who turn down a job without "good cause" can have their benefits cut by up to 40%.

The Bill aims to make parents of children as young as three take part in "work-related activity".

Many single parents are already being squeezed by the recession.

Calls to Gingerbread's helpline suggest more lone parents are seeing maintenance payments slashed as ex-partners lose their jobs.

Gingerbread's research also found many parents were keen to work but said it often didn't pay. "Childcare, travel and school meal costs can wipe out the benefits of many lowpaid, part-time jobs and leave parents out of pocket," says Weir.

Gingerbread wants employers to be more flexible to help single parents juggle work and family responsibilities and says the state could lead by example by offering more flexitime, parttime work and job sharing.

It believes single parents should have childcare costs covered through working tax credits and get their youngsters school meals free.

The DWP stressed the Government was commited to ensuring work pays for lone parents. Work & Pensions Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced a trial that from next year will mean they can earn £50 a week without losing benefits. And the bill has been amended so victims of domestic violence will not have to look for work for three months.

"We need to help families out of poverty by helping parents work, and we will always do so in a way that also supports family life," said Cooper. Here we speak to three single mums facing the challenges...

For expert advice call Gingerbread's free helpline on 0800 018 5026.

The full-time mum

Mother-of-two Jaqueline Carroll says she feels "stuck in a rut" on benefits.

"I want to work," the 33-year-old from Liverpool says. "I think it's terrible that the Government is threatening to take money off single parents instead of help them.

"Some single parents advisers are good - but some ask why you don't apply for jobs starting from 8.30am. When you say you can't because you have to drop your child off at school, they go 'oh you're just being negative'."

Jacqueline was shocked when she went for a supermarket job. "The first thing they said was 'if any of you want cushy hours, forget it. The good hours are for people already here'."

The part-time worker

Wendi New, 40, had to give up her job teaching young offenders in prison when her marriage broke up 12 months ago.

She says staff at her local Jobcentre tried to push her to work at a supermarket, despite her qualifications. Now she has a job teaching children with behavioural problems closer to her home in Lowestoft, Suffolk. She works 18 hours a week and brings home about £900 a month.

"I'd have to work 50 hours a week in a supermarket to earn that. I couldn't do it and look after Hollie. Even now if Hollie's ill I have to take unpaid leave and then I'm worse off than I'd be on benefits."

The full-time worker

Charity worker Sarah Davidge from Bristol wants to work to provide a "positive role model" for her daughters Meg and Beth.

"You have two jobs - work and parenting. But you don't feel as if you do either to the best of your ability. I can't stay late at work and I don't feel able to devote as much time as I'd like going through homework with them."

Sarah admits she is luckier than many lone parents - earning about £25,000 for a 35-hour week, and her employer is flexible about hours.

"But a lot of companies aren't so flexible. The Government should encourage choice, not try to force people to take the first job going."

Thousands Of Charities Hit By Government Cuts

Thousands of charities and voluntary groups are facing budget cuts worth over £100m because of reductions in local government funding.

Some groups are having funding withdrawn altogether, the study of councils across England by anti-cuts website False Economy showed.

The cuts have totalled over £10m in the past year but the final figure is likely to be far higher because some authorities have not yet finalised their plans, said the report.

Many of the charities facing cuts deal with disabled people, children, the elderly and adult care, said False Economy.

The group's campaign director, Clifford Singer, said: "These cuts go deep into the voluntary and community sectors.

In practice the Big Society is looking more and more like a big con.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Brendan Barber

"These are not just nice-to-have groups but organisations [which provide] vital services for older people trying to maintain independent lives, vulnerable children and abused women."

Adventure playground KIDS, based in Hackney in east London, offers services for children with disabilities and learning difficulties.

Organisers say councils are cutting back on funding the playground for vital services.

Alex Mills, national services manager for KIDS told Sky News: "There is no Plan B. If we don't get enough funding then we can't run services like this.

"We foresee that if local authorities look at only the short term by making small cuts here and there, then they aren't really looking at the long term, and the fact that they will have to invest thousands more pounds in the future to support these families who won't have this service right at the start.''












Simon Bierman takes his two sons to the playground most weeks and he is not convinced the group can survive on volunteers alone.

"The Big Society looks good on paper but the fact is that people have problems and pressures of their own," he said.

"Some of the kids here need professional help and that costs money."

Charity groups and trade unions are now rounding on David Cameron's Big Society idea, claiming that it is not working.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) general secretary Brendan Barber said: "These deep cuts to voluntary groups across the UK show that Government claims that charities can replace direct services currently provided by central or local government are false.

"It sounds great, but in practice the Big Society is looking more and more like a big con."

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government added: "The Government has provided a fair and progressive funding settlement for councils that protect frontline services and shield the most vulnerable.

"Councils have challenging decisions to make around how they prioritise spending but the Government is clear that councils must resist any temptation to pass on disproportionate savings to the voluntary sector."

The Benefit Trap: Working Families Feel The Squeeze

Iain Duncan Smith's tax and benefits reforms are hitting the most vulnerable in society, say leading think tanks, and threaten to undermine any notion that work pays.









Low income families are becoming worse off and the prospect of work less attractive as government reforms of tax and benefits systems aimed at encouraging people back to work take effect.

The warning comes in the wake of a series of reports from respected think tanks that have analysed the impact of the reforms being led by work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

Their findings reveal that an urgent rethink is needed, highlighting problems in the interaction of income tax and tax credits with other benefits.

‘Cuts to childcare tax credits could leave some parents losing 94p for every extra pound they earn,’ according to a report from the Resolution Foundation. It cites the example of a single mother on the minimum wage who would be just £3 a week better off if she decided to work four days a week rather than three.

Lone parents, 92% of whom are women, are worst hit by cuts, losing 8.5% of their annual income by 2015, according to The Fawcett Society. Its analysis was based on research undertaken by the highly regarded Institute for Fiscal Studies using the government's own models.

‘The government talks a lot about promoting responsibility and backing aspiration, but on the ground these cuts are actually stopping single parents from getting on,’ says Fiona Weir, chief executive of Gingerbread that represents lone parents.

‘It is unacceptable that single parents are bearing the brunt of cuts and this research proves again that the government must do more to support single parents, including further investment in childcare, training and employment support.’
Childcare costs

In the past, parents have been able to claim back up to 80% of childcare costs up to £300 a week, depending on income. For a family with two children or more this works out at a maximum of £240 a week. But since April the proportion these costs a parent can claim back has been reduced to 70 per cent and capped at £210 a week – a loss of £30 a week.

The Resolution Report calculates that almost 500,000 working families have lost an average of £426 a year in childcare benefit since April of this year, rising to an average of £600 a year in London, with some as much as £1,300 a year worse off.

According to the Daycare Trust’s 2011 annual survey of child care costs, the average yearly expenditure for 25 hours nursery care per week for a child under two is £5,028 in England, £5,178 in Scotland and £4,723 in Wales. This works out at around £96 a week on average.

But for parents working from 8.30am to 5.30pm childcare costs are nearly double at £172 a week, with some parents paying as much as £11 an hour for child care.

Child Benefit Cuts For Better Off Are Fair - Cameron

David Cameron has defended plans to cut higher rate taxpayers' child benefit, saying it is fair to ask them to contribute to cutting the deficit.













He said he knew cutting the benefit for people on more than £44,000 would not make him popular - but it was the "right thing to do".

Labour's Yvette Cooper described it as an "unfair attack on child benefit".

The BBC understands the government plans to introduce a tax break for married couples in this parliament.

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said government sources had told him that there would be a tax break for married couples introduced in this parliament - which is due to run until May 2015.

He said that although the original Conservative policy was to limit the tax breaks to basic rate tax payers, the coalition agreement did not repeat that and the chancellor might seek to partially compensate the stay-at-home mothers who feel aggrieved by the child benefit cut.

On Monday Chancellor George Osborne said that from 2013 the benefit would be removed from families with at least one parent earning more than about £44,000 a year.

Hours later children's minister Tim Loughton told Channel 4 News the move to cut the benefit from 1.2 million families might need revising, with possible compensating measures for those "genuinely in need". He later said people were "over-excited" by his comments and he was not calling for a review.

However, Ms Cooper, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the government's policy was "now unravelling" adding: "They have clearly been taken aback by the reaction of parents across the country.

"George Osborne and David Cameron obviously don't understand what it means for families on middle incomes to lose thousands of pounds a year."

The child benefit threshold was aligned with the higher-rate 40% income tax threshold to avoid complex means testing but there has been criticism that the move will penalise some families where one parent stays at home to look after the children.

While families with two earners on just under £44,000 each - but collectively about £80,000 - would keep child benefit, those with one earner on more than £44,000 would lose it.
'Makes sense'

Conservative former shadow home secretary David Davis told the Daily Mail the policy would encourage mothers to go out to work adding: "It would be fairer to consider family income rather than that of individuals."

The prime minister said he wanted to protect the poorest and neediest as the government tackled the £155bn deficit but told the BBC earlier that stay-at-home mothers could benefit in future from "some sort of transferable tax allowance to help couples".

Mr Cameron told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that while people on £44,000 were not rich - they were "a lot better off" than those trying to raise a family on £25,000 a year adding that the cut - estimated to save £1bn a year - "makes sense".

"In the spending round we're having to make difficult decisions. This is £1bn I don't have to take off the education budget.

"I want to make sure in Britain we have real social mobility and life chances given to the poorest children in our country so they can go to the best schools and the best universities and we can have a truly mobile Britain.

"That does mean in a spending round you have to ask better off people to make a contribution so you can protect the most vulnerable and help them have a better life."

He said it was "an argument about fairness" and pointed out Mr Osborne also planned to cap the amount of benefit people could receive - so they never got more than the average working family brought home in pay - estimated at about £26,000 a year.

That would mean benefits would be restricted to £500 a week from 2013 and would be thought to affect 50,000 households, who would lose an average of £93 a week.

The limit would not apply to people on disability living allowance, war widows' pensions and working tax credit.

Mr Cameron said 85% of people would continue to get child benefit and assessing the whole family's income would have necessitated "an incredibly bureaucratic and expensive" and "intrusive" system, means-testing every family in the country.

Accusing the previous Labour government of having "bankrupted the country", he added: "It is difficult. I wish I wasn't having to do this, but we have to deal with the problems in front of us."

Asked about speculation that other universal benefits - like winter fuel payments and free bus passes for pensioners - might be cut, he said: "Obviously you have to wait for the spending review announcement but I made some pretty clear promises to pensioners in our country, and those are promises I want to keep."

Haringey Children's Centre Cuts Battle Set For Government

CUTS to children's centres have been rubber-stamped as campaigners prepare to send a petition to the Government.

Funding cuts to four of Haringey's 19 children's centres, as well as a reduction in services at others, were formally agreed at a meeting at Wood Green Civic Centre yesterday afternoon.

All money will be withdrawn from the Highgate, Rokesly and Northbank centres, as well as a linked site at Tower Gardens, a decision councillors say they have been forced to make after Government cuts left the authority needing to save £41 million in the next year.

But campaigners are taking their cause to Westminster – Daisy Heath, organiser of a campaign to save the borough's children's centres, said she will write to Education Secretary Michael Gove on Monday.

She said: “We've got around 1,200 signatures on our petition – that's huge really when you consider the amount of people that use children's services.

“I'll be writing to Michael Gove to protest at the position the Government has put the council in where it's been forced to make these cuts.”

Ms Heath claims that the cuts will lower the social mobility of children in the borough.

Councillor Lorna Reith, cabinet member for children and young people, said that the reorganised children's centre service would focus on the most deprived areas.

She plans to organise remaining centres into four clusters, each with around four sites.

The council wants the manager of each cluster to coordinate services between centres so there is a variation of opening times and that they target vulnerable children effectively.

Clusters in more deprived areas such as Tottenham will continue a full range of services, spending £194 per child, but in more affluent areas centres that remain will only spend £72 per child.

The government has effectively cut the national Early Intervention Grant - which rolled up a number of smaller grants into one pot - by 22 per cent.

According to Haringey, its early years funding allocation overall has been cut by £7m to £15m.

Councillors made a 75 per cent cut to the youth services budget in February, including a £6.5m saving in the children's centres and early years budget.

Expenses Scandal: Tory Leader David Cameron Faces Probe Over Mortgage Claim

DAVID CAMERON faced an internal inquiry yesterday into claims he "maxed out" his second home expenses.

The Tory leader took out a £350,000 taxpayer-funded mortgage and then paid off a £75,000 loan soon afterwards.














The financial juggling may have cost taxpayers as much as £22,000.

Cameron said he had not broken any rules but agreed to be investigated by the "scrutiny panel" he set up last month to investigate Tory abuses.

Asked if he had failed his own "smell test" - that it broke the spirit if not the letter of the rules - he limply responded: "It's absolutely for others to make that decision."

But he said he would repay the money if found guilty.

Gordon Brown moved to seize the initiative by setting out plans for a legally-binding code of conduct for MPs, peers and other public servants.

He said the code would apply not just to MPs but organisations such as the BBC and the NHS, which are also publicly funded.

Labour called on Cameron to publish all the documents so the public could see if he had cheated the taxpayer. He took out a £350,000 mortgage on a constituency home in Oxfordshire when he became an MP in 2001.

By declaring it as a second home he was able to claim around £20,000 a year from the taxpayer towards the cost of the mortgage.

Within four months of buying the property, the millionaire Tory leader paid off the outstanding £75,000 he owed on a house in London.

Experts have calculated that if he had kept the loan on the London home and borrowed £75,000 less on the Oxfordshire home, he could have saved taxpayers £22,000. Cameron told the BBC's Politics Show: "I think what I did was very reasonable."

He denied he could have reduced the amount the taxpayer had to pay.

He said: "First, because I was actually paying out more in interest for my mortgage than I was claiming from the taxpayer and, second, when I did pay down the mortgage, I was then able to claim for some very basic and standard bills, things like heating and lighting and water."

Brown defended his own record on expenses, saying: "I feel that I have managed my affairs personally with the utmost integrity."

Meanwhile, Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg called for Alistair Darling to resign over allegations he "flipped" his second home to beef up his claims.

But the Chancellor's spokeswoman said: "The allegation he changed addresses for personal gain is untrue."

Rising Energy Costs Move Up Political Agenda

Higher energy costs are likely to become one of the most sensitive issues in British politics, according to analysts, after Scottish and Southern Energy became the third utility in quick succession to announce a big increase in customer bills.













SSE’s decision on Thursday to increase gas and electricity charges by 18 and 11 per cent respectively will leave a typical dual-fuel customer paying £1,265 a year. The company acknowledged that this burden, amounting to over 6 per cent of the UK’s median post-tax salary, will cause additional hardship.

“SSE is very sorry about the impact that rising energy bills, along with other rising costs, such as food, has on many households,” said the utility, which supplies 5.2m customers with electricity and 3.6m with gas.

The decision had been forced by rising wholesale prices for electricity and gas, said SSE. This, in turn, had been caused by the “tsunami in Japan and political upheaval in the Middle East, and longer-term trends such as the fast-increasing energy needs of the Asian economies”.

British Gas and Scottish Power cited the same factors when they announced similar price increases earlier this year.

However, the government wants the “big six” utilities to spend £200bn on renewing Britain’s entire energy infrastructure over the next decade. The cost of this ambitious scheme to replace lost generating capacity and cut carbon dioxide emissions will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher bills, said analysts.

If so, future increases in energy charges will be the indirect result of government policy.

“It’s going to be very much a political hot potato. It’s going to hit all of us and I would expect MPs’ postbags to be full of letters this winter,” said Ann Robinson, energy analyst at Uswitch, a consumer website.

“All the huge investments are going to start and they’ve got to be paid for. The government should stand back and re-assess its energy policy.”

Higher energy bills place a disproportionate burden on the old and the poor, while in the business sector, manufacturing industry is most vulnerable. One government policy – the introduction of a carbon price floor – will raise electricity costs for energy-intensive companies by 10 per cent by 2020, according to Roger Salomone, energy adviser at EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation.

“An increase of that order is going to be very significant for energy-intensive companies and for manufacturing in general,” he said. “It could affect the business case for where a product is made.”

Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, described SSE’s decision as “very unwelcome news”, adding that it justified his aim to “reduce our dependence on fossil fuels” and create a “greener, cleaner and ultimately cheaper mix of electricity sources.”

Mr Huhne has previously advised consumers to switch suppliers when bills rise. But Huw Irranca-Davies, Labour’s shadow energy minister, pointed out that three utilities have increased their charges this year and others may follow.

“That will be fascinating advice if we see a summer when all of the ‘big six’ increase their prices by similar amounts. Who do you switch to then Chris?” he asked.

Mr Irranca-Davies added that the utilities should be referred to the Competition Commission. Only a formal investigation would show whether their bill increases had been justified, he said.

PM Defends NHS Against Privatisation Claims

David Cameron has been defending his health service reforms against charges that they represent a gradual privatisation of the NHS.

But embarrassingly for the Prime Minister, he admitted a member of his own family had reservations about his plans while visiting a London hospital.











"My brother-in-law is a hospital doctor and he says 'You're giving too much power to the GPs, and hospitals will be disadvantaged'," he told a patient.

As MPs prepare to debate the Health and Social Care Bill, and as unions prepare to protest outside parliament, Mr Cameron argues that the reforms are essential.

The Prime Minister, in a letter to The Times, argues that without modernisation, the NHS will become unaffordable.

"Fail to modernise, and the NHS is heading for crisis," he writes, claiming that the Coalition government's proposals are simply about using more efficiently and effectively what already exists.

"GP-led commissioning, patient choice, payment by results and Foundation Trusts have all existed in one form or another over the past 15 years," he continued.

"The NHS has always worked with a range of social enterprises, charities and private companies. The difference is that we plan to make these changes effective right across the NHS."

Health unions, however, say the greatest threat to the NHS is the reform programme itself.

They claim most people oppose it, including many GPs, patients, clinicians, charities and MPs - who are also concerned that the Government is trying to rush through a complex Bill containing 280 clauses without sufficient scrutiny.

The public sector union UNISON conducted a survey of 2,000 adults which the union said revealed that 56% of Liberal Democrat voters oppose private firms providing NHS services, while only 46% of Conservative supporters support the move.

The Royal College of Surgeons has warned that patient care could be compromised if GPs, who would control £80bn of the NHS budget, start to focus on price rather than quality.

In the Commons, there is disquiet, once again, among Lib Dem MPs, and even some Conservatives are worried that the reforms might prove damaging.

Mr Cameron and his Health Secretary Andrew Lansley should be able to steer the Bill through parliament, but then the true test will come, with the health unions warning of dire consequences, no less than the destruction of the NHS as a universal service free at the point of delivery.

Health workers are expected to stage a protest outside Parliament during the debate.