Third Of Tenants Face Underoccupancy Cut

Cutting housing benefit for working-age tenants who underoccupy their homes will affect around a third of those living in social housing, the government has revealed.

An impact assessment from the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that limiting housing benefit payments to the number of bedrooms that a social tenant actually needs will affect 670,000 people living in social housing.


















The report, released yesterday as part of the government’s Welfare Reform Bill, says most tenants only underoccupy by one bedroom, and will lose around £11 a week in 2013/14, when the change comes into play.

Those with two or more bedrooms that they do not use will lose an average of £20 per week, the assessment says. It also found that tenants in the north, east midlands and Wales were more likely to be affected than those living in London and the south east.

Around 46 per cent of social tenants in the north east will see their housing benefit cut by around £12 a week, while only 19 per cent of London tenants will be affected.

The National Housing Federation condemned the plans. David Orr, chief executive, said: ‘Ministers have long promised to protect the vulnerable and yet these plans could force thousands of people to move out of homes they have lived in for many years.

‘As a result of these changes, thousands of couples are no longer able to offer their grown-up children a room to stay in should their circumstances change, and many single parents will be pushed away from friends, relatives and support networks.’

Under occupancy penalty could force struggling families into hands of loan shark.

Plans to slash housing benefit for hundreds of thousands of low income families could lead to a huge surge in the number of people turning to loan sharks and doorstep lenders as they struggle to pay their bills, campaigners warned today.

The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) intends to use the Welfare Reform Bill to slash housing benefit for tenants living in homes deemed too large for their needs - even if they have lived there for decades.

The measure will hit 670,000 council and housing association tenants - a third of all working-age housing benefit claimants in the social rented sector across Great Britain.

The DWP has suggested that households seeing their benefit reduced - by 13% for those with one 'spare' room and 23% for two or more 'spare' rooms - should 'move to accommodation which better reflects the size and composition of their household' - or make up the shortfall from other income sources.

Each claimant is expected to lose an average of £676 a year if the Government succeeds in introducing the measure in 2013. Tenants will face a tough choice of either downsizing to a smaller home to avoid the penalty or staying put and paying a much higher level of rent from their own resources.

But even for those who do look to downsize there is by no means any guarantee they will find a smaller social home to move into. Around 180,000 social tenants in England are 'under-occupying' two-bedroom homes, but just 68,000 one bedroom social homes became available for letting in a single year (2009/10).

The average social housing household in receipt of housing benefit has an annual income of just £8,320 a year. The proposed 'under occupation' penalty will leave vulnerable families with a shortfall of £676 to make up from their savings or other allowances. Many are at risk of falling into debt because they simply would not have the money to pay all their bills.

Currently, around 2.5m people borrow from doorstep lenders at rates often in the region of 272% APR for new customers. A further 200,000 are estimated to borrow from loan sharks, who can charge anything up to 2,000% APR. A majority of those financially excluded are social housing tenants.

If a tenant took out a £700 loan to cover the under occupation penalty with the doorstep lender Provident, they would pay an APR of 272.2% on the loan, according to a typical example given on their website. That would mean repaying £1,274 back over the course of a year. For people going to illegal loan sharks the rate could be ten times as much.

Federation chief executive David Orr said: "The Government's plans to penalise hundreds of thousands of low income families who are adjudged to be 'under occupying' their property is harsh and regressive.

"In the vast majority of cases, people will simply not be able to make up the shortfall themselves and could end up being sucked into poverty and spiralling levels of debt.

"The Government has repeatedly said that it will look after the most vulnerable, but pushing thousands of people into the arms of doorstep lenders and illegal loan sharks is wrong and will lead to a huge degree anxiety for many of the poorest in our society."

Niall Cooper, National Coordinator of Church Action on Poverty said: "There is a real danger that people will be pushed into the hands of loan sharks by the housing benefit cuts.

"Many tenants are already struggling to make ends meet, and can ill afford the cost of borrowing from high cost lenders who routinely charge anywhere between 200%-2,000% APR for loans.

"For some, this will push them over the edge - into a spiral of debt, or even homelessness."

Planning Reforms: Greg Clark Admits Changes 'Could Have Been Clearer'

Greg Clark has admitted that there are flaws in the Government’s controversial proposals to reform the planning system.












Greg Clark MP, planning minister, signalled there would be changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

In the first public debate since Prime Minister David Cameron intervened in the row earlier this week, the planning minister said that some of the proposals on brownfield land, housing targets and "sustainable development" could have been clearer.

The comments provide clues to how ministers are likely to amend the controversial National draft Planning Policy Framework, which has attracted fierce criticism from countryside campaigners, after a consultation closes in the middle of next month.

Mr Clark told a seminar at a London law firm organised by the British Property Federation that it was difficult to express the Government's intentions at the same time as reducing bureaucracy.

He said: “When you distil more than 1,000 pages to around 50 ... Inevitably it is the case not every thing is expressed in the clearest way possible but that does not signal malign intent or an intention to subvert the process."

Protesters have accused the Government of trying to rip up the planning system by removing protections for the countryside in favour of development.

Mr Clark strongly denied this suggestion and said that the Government was willing to listen to critics. He said: “This is a genuine consultation. It does not imply any agenda of the Government to change the nature of planning.”

Afterwards, Mr Clark told The Daily Telegraph: “Any consultation wants to make sure that everything are expressed more clearly. My view is that these safeguards are there and are clear to all, but if people think they are not we will respond to them.”

Mr Clark is pushing through plans to replace 1,300 pages of planning regulations in England with just 52 pages in the new NPPF.

The framework writes into the rules a new “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, without defining clearly what it means, leading campaigners to fear that large areas of England will be concreted over.

Mr Clark added: "The intention of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not to provide a loophole where alien developments will be imposed on the community rather the NPPF wants to replicate the kind of policies a reasonable local authority would put in place."

Campaigners, led by the National Trust, have suggested the Government has tried to change the planning system so that it is biased in favour of promoting growth, rather than the environment.

The Daily Telegraph is also running a campaign called Hands Off Our Land urging the Government to reconsider its plans.

There was a breakthrough this week when Mr Cameron personally assured the Trust in a letter to its director general Dame Fiona Reynolds that the environmental benefits of developments would be assessed before new projects were given permission.

Mr Clark hinted at some of the clarifications that he was planning as part of the Government’s response to the consultation, which ends on Oct 17.

He suggested that a presumption to build on previously developed areas or “brownfield” sites, which is in current rules, would be written back into the guidance.

He said: “It was never my intention, and it certainly was not the Government’s intention, to depart from the obviously desirable situation in which derelict land should be brought back into use. That is always the intention.”

“If not mentioning brownfield at all leads people to conclude there is a different intention, then without pre-empting the consultation, that is something that I am hearing being said.”

Mr Clark also said he had been misunderstood over targets for local authorities to provide 20 per cent more land for building.

He said that this does not necessarily mean that more houses will be built, but simply that more options for development are made available. The intention was “not to have more homes built than the locality needs”, he said.

Mr Clark added: “Not every site that is earmarked for development turns out in practice to be developable. Problems arise. So you always need to have something of a buffer to make sure that the number you plan for is developable.”

He also admitted the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” was open to interpretation and needed further work.

He said: “I think the presumption in favour of sustainable development requires sustainability to be there, to be guaranteed but we will listen (to the consultation).”

Campaigners welcomed the softening in tone in the minister’s comments. Shaun Spiers, chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “Mr Clark was acknowledging that there are clearly huge parts that can be improved. It helps the tone of the debate and it has good to feel that the minister is listening.”

Dame Fiona Reynolds, director general of the National Trust, told the meeting that she had been "horrified by the draft" because the document focused on promoting the economy over environmental concerns.

She added: "It’s good to hear Greg Clark's confirmation of the goal of balance and his warm words about genuine consultation. I now look forward to seeing amendments to the draft NPPF which deliver balance - this is what's now needed.”

What Ed Miliband Should Say At Labour Conference, But Won’t

It is now beyond question that Ed Miliband is moving his party to the left, or redefining the centre ground if you prefer, or drawing a line under the New Labour era. Or whatever.










The latest symbolic move has been to back Palestinian statehood in advance of a vote at the UN. This is a peculiar decision that makes no real sense before knowing what the Palestinians are putting on the table, except to send a strong message to the party faithful that Ed Miliband is shifting policy on the Middle East. This line on Israel/Palestine is one that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would never have countenanced and that is the whole point.

Ed Miliband is determined to ditch the legacy of the Blair-Brown era (which is odd considering that he is its creature) and I can’t help thinking this is a terrible strategic error.

The opposition is hamstrung by the fact that it still hasn’t found the right language to take on the government. Miliband has squeezed himself into a tiny ideological sliver, where he can’t move any further to the left for fear of inviting ridicule, but can’t entirely embrace the achievements of the Blair-Brown years either.

In welfare to work, education and health, the Cameroons are engaged in implementing the Blairite reform agenda. The logic of Ed Miliband in the new post-New Labour era should make it possible to oppose this from the Left. But there are still too many Blairites around him to quite pull this off. With Liam Byrne in charge of the policy review it will be impossible to dump the New Labour policy agenda in its entirety.

Instead of trying to persuade people that Cameron is a Thatcherite in disguise, Labour should concentrate on questioning the Tories’ competence in government. Ed Miliband’s conference speech should recognise that all the most adventurous ideas of the new government are stolen from New Labour and give them a cautious welcome. He should then say that the job of opposition is to forensically examine the government’s record on delivery and stand back.

He won’t do this, of course, because to embrace the Blairite legacy would mean immediate death within the party.

Boundary Commission Leak Shows Absurdity Of Embargoes

Full leak of Westminster shakeup online leaves newspapers and broadcasters struck dumb - and irrelevant - until midnight.












Crumbling reporting restrictions...

Why on earth did the Boundary Commission think that releasing the results of its reshuffle of English and Northern Irish Westminster constituencies should be kept under wraps until midnight? The shape and size of constituencies is a subject of near obsessive interest to MPs - who like newspapers and broadcasters have already been briefed on the proposals today. All have told to keep quiet until the first minute of tomorrow, but in such an environment leaks are inevitable.

Guido Fawkes has published a complete set of the reform proposals - you can read that here. Some local media are already discussing them - here is something about the Isle of Wight if you are interested. Twitter is, well, atweet with similar details - Nick Bent who was a candidate at Warrington South at the last election has published a link to the proposals for the North West. And MPs are ringing the Guardian to comment, or would like to, were it not for the fact that this newspaper is under embargo.

It's a nonsense. This is the modern day equivalent of the old 14 day rule - the rule that used to prevent the BBC from discussing any area of policy that had been debated in Parliament in the last fortnight. The 14 day rule was dropped in 1957 because it was obviously a nonsense then. That was the era of Suez. But, in an era where news moves that little bit faster, it seems to have returned in a new guise. Broadcasters and newspapers cannot report on or explain the changes to Westminster constituency boundaries, when the whole of Westminster knows the proposals and anybody interested can read all about it online.

If traditional media keep this up, they can look forward to the blogosphere cheerfully stealing some of the easiest scoops known to reporting. Somebody ought to stand up for serious journalism and break ranks. It's only an embargo after all.

Scrap 'Reckless And Needless' Public Sector Reforms, Says Ed Miliband

Labour leader tells PM that money spent on elected police chiefs and NHS shakeup could be better spent recruiting frontline staff.



Ed Miliband and David Cameron clash at PMQs.

The prime minister, David Cameron, admitted that stand-alone elections for police commissioners will cost an additional £25m as he faced a barracking from Labour's Ed Miliband over "reckless and needless" public sector reforms.

Cameron faced accusations of "wasting money" which could be better used to recruit thousands of extra police officers, as he sought to defend moves to introduce elected police commissioners.

A plan to bring in elected police chiefs is set to go ahead after Liberal Democrat peers, who had been delaying the Tory initiated policy, accepted safeguards introduced into the legislation.

In a move likely to irritate many on the Conservative benches who feel their party is making too many concessions to Lib Dems and too few to their own side, the legislative delay will mean voting for the new posts will take place in November 2012 instead of at the same time as local elections in May.

The Labour leader told Cameron he was "making a bad policy worse by wasting money" after the prime minister said staging separate elections in November would cost £25m – money Cameron stressed would not come out of police budgets.

As MPs prepared to debate amendments to the health and social care bill on Wednesday afternoon, Miliband also criticised the NHS shakeup and urged the prime minister to "scrap both of these disruptive and dangerous plans".

Miliband told Cameron at the close of a heated exchange: "The truth is, under this government we are seeing two reckless and needless reorganisations of our public services, police numbers down and waiting lists up.

"Under Labour we saw police officers up and waiting lists down. Why don't you do the right thing for the future of our public services and scrap both of these disruptive and dangerous plans?"

Miliband seized on reforms to health and policing as MPs gathered for the first prime minister's questions session since July.

Regarding the cost of delaying the elections for police commissioners, Cameron told Miliband: "It is important to get this policy right and to make sure it works."

Turning the tables on Miliband, Cameron asked him why Labour was "so frightened of elections".

Cameron said the plan involved scrapping police authorities, which would save money, and accused Labour of making a "U-turn".

Labour previously had plans for "directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing", said Cameron.

Miliband said: "We know what the public up and down this country know: this is the wrong priority for the country. What did we see during the riots? We saw visible, effective policing."

He went on: "The prime minister tells us we cannot afford the current police budget, we have got to cut the number of police officers by 16,000.

"But he tells the country it can afford £100m and more as a result of his decision to waste money on 42 elected politicians earning over £120,000 a year. That could pay for 2,000 extra police officers.

"Isn't the truth that this is the wrong priority at the wrong time for the country?"

As Miliband later moved on to the controversial health reforms, Cameron joked: "I'm not surprised you want to change subjects because on policing you were having your collar felt because you have done a complete U-turn on the policy you used to be committed to."

The Labour leader said the number of people who had to wait more than six months for an operation had gone up by more than 60% since Cameron entered Downing Street.

Cameron insisted the amount of time people were waiting for an outpatient operation had "actually gone down".

"As you know, we have targets for 90% of people to get their treatment within 18 weeks and those targets are being met," he said.

And he insisted the health reforms were now backed by a number of leading professional health groups as well as former Labour health minister and surgeon Lord Darzi – to the dismay of Miliband, who accused him of being "on another planet".

The Labour leader said the British Medical Association, the Royal College of GPs and the Royal College of Midwives "all rejected your bill".

Shirley Williams Plunges NHS Reforms Into Fresh Turmoil

Liberal Democrat peer in new battle over health and social care bill, while secret emails fuel privatisation fears for hospitals.












Baroness Williams has raised fresh doubts over the health and social care bill following the publication of secret emails.

The future of the government's health reforms has been plunged into fresh doubt as the Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams raises new concerns, and secret emails reveal plans to hand over the running of up to 20 hospitals to overseas companies. The revelations come as MPs prepare to return to Westminster on Tuesday for what promises to be a crucial stage of the flagship health and social care bill.

Baroness Williams, one of the original leaders of a Lib Dem rebellion against health secretary Andrew Lansley's plans – who appeared to have been pacified after changes were made over the summer – said she had new doubts, having re-examined the proposals. "Despite the great efforts made by Nick Clegg and Paul Burstow [the Lib Dem health minister], I still have huge concerns about the bill. The battle is far from over," she said.

Writing in Sunday's Observer, Williams raises a series of issues that she says must be addressed. Chief among them is a legal doubt as to whether the secretary of state will any longer be bound to deliver "a comprehensive health service for the people of England, free at the point of need".

Some critics of Lansley believe the Tories are bent on a mission to privatise the NHS, gradually handing it to the private sector. They fear that moves to end the legal obligation on the secretary of state to deliver comprehensive services may be a deliberate part of the process.

Concerns that ministers want more private involvement will be strengthened by details of email exchanges involving senior health officials about handing the management of 10 to 20 NHS hospitals to international private companies. The emails, which were made public following a freedom of information request and were obtained by non-profit-making investigations company Spinwatch, show that officials have been planning since late last year to bring in international companies. This is despite repeated insistences by both David Cameron and Nick Clegg that there will be no privatisation of the NHS. On 16 May, Cameron said: "Let me make clear: there will be no privatisation." Clegg said: "Yes to reform of the NHS, but no to the privatisation of the NHS."

One of the emails released by the department shows that officials at the private sector firm McKinsey, which advises ministers, were in active discussion about bringing in overseas firms to take over up to 20 hospitals in return for contracts running into hundreds of millions of pounds. An email to Ian Dalton, head of provider development at the Department of Health, who is heavily involved in the reform programme, in November last year talks about "interest in new solution for 10-20 hospitals but starting from a mindset of one at a time with various political constraints".

The emails show that McKinsey is acting as a broker between the department and "international players" that are bidding to run the NHS. The documents even lay out some of the conditions required by "international hospital provider groups" for running NHS hospitals. "International players can do an initiative if 500 million revenue [is] on the table." They also need to have "a free hand on staff management". The NHS would be allowed to "keep real estate and pensions".

The Department of Health attempted to play down the significance of the emails, saying they were referring to what might be done if any one hospital trust asked for the private sector to become involved in running a failing hospital. A spokesman said: "It is not unusual for the Department of Health to hold meetings with external organisations. Any decisions to involve organisations, such as the independent sector or foundation trusts, in running the management of NHS hospitals would be led by the NHS locally and in all cases NHS staff and assets would remain wholly owned by the NHS."

But a spokesman for the public service union Unison said: "Regardless of what Cameron and Clegg say in public, it is clear that behind the scenes the government is planning to privatise the NHS. Private companies will only run hospitals if they see a profit in it. This, together with lifting the cap off the number of private patients NHS hospitals can treat, will completely change the culture of the NHS. It will be profits before patients.

"We demand that the government come clean on their plans. If this is true, patient choice is a complete sham. The move to any qualified provider is clearly about creating a market for private companies. Any MP who votes for the health and social care bill is voting for the end of the NHS."

Williams also raises worries about the extent to which the role of the private sector is being expanded. "I am not against a private element in the NHS, which may bring innovatory ideas and good practice, provided it is within the framework of a public service …" she writes. "But why have they tried to get away from the NHS as a public service, among the most efficient, least expensive and fairest anywhere in the world? Why have they been bewitched by a flawed US system that is unable to provide a universal service and is very expensive indeed?"

She adds: "The remarkable vision of the 1945 Attlee government, of a public service free at the point of need for all the people of England, should not be allowed to die."

John Healey, Labour's shadow health secretary, said: "As David Cameron's government railroads the health bill through parliament, MPs are being denied their constitutional role to properly scrutinise his plans for the NHS. The prime minister has already done a political fix with Nick Clegg on the health bill, and now he's trying to force it through with a procedural fix."

Clegg Calls For 'Probing Questions' On NHS Bill

Clegg's demands over NHS may spark Lords amendments – as Lib Dem grassroots say bill will hurt patients and party.












A demonstrator protests at Tory-Lib Dem moves to reform the NHS.

The Tories and Liberal Democrats are facing a fresh clash over the government's NHS reforms after Nick Clegg encouraged his MPs to put "probing questions" to ministers when the bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday.

In a two-hour meeting with his parliamentary party on Monday night, the deputy prime minister held out the possibility that he will accept amendments to the heath and social care bill when it moves to the House of Lords later this month.

Clegg's move means that Lady Williams could be backed by Liberal Democrat ministers if she attempts to amend the bill to guarantee that the health secretary has a legal duty to deliver a comprehensive health service free at the point of need.

But a source at the Department of Health indicated last night that Andrew Lansley, the health secretary – who has already amended the bill after the government's "listening exercise" – would not accept fresh amendments on this point.

The source said: "Our view is that the legislation is watertight on the secretary of state's obligation to ensure there is an NHS available to all. That was always our view. But we amended the legislation to reassure those who were not sure."

Clegg said earlier in the day that he accepted the view that there was no need for fresh amendments on this issue.

In a speech on schools in south-west London, he said: "Let me be absolutely clear. There is nothing, nothing, nothing in any of the government's plans which in anyway threaten the basic founding principles of the NHS...There is no question, legally or politically, of the secretary of state under these new arrangements being somehow able to wash his or her hands of the NHS."

But at Monday night's meeting of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, Clegg admitted that ministers still had to work hard to clarify the bill for MPs and peers with concerns.

Paul Burstow, the Lib Dem health minister, is to offer further briefings to MPs and peers who will also be invited to meet officials at the department of health.

All sides accept that it is too late to table further amendments on the NHS reforms when the bill is debated by MPs at report stage on Tuesday and Wednesday and at third reading on Wednesday . But Lib Dem MPs have been encouraged to put "probing questions" to ministers for possible amendments that will be tabled in the House of Lords.

One Lib Dem source said: "We hope that we will not need to amend the bill further. But we may have to." Another Lib Dem source said: "There will be robust interventions in the debate."

Lib Dem whips believe that the overwhelming number of MPs will support the amended bill. But Andrew George, the Lib Dem MP for St Ives, said he would rebel.

The battle within the Lib Dem ranks was exposed last night in leaked emails, in which grassroots members of the party vented their anger at the leadership.

Jeremy Sanders of Huddersfield Liberal Democrats wrote in an email to John Pugh this week, the Lib Dem backbench health committee chairman, that "yes, we can try to get improvements to the details, but none of these changes are going to alter the basic fact that the legislation is based on the assumption that what the NHS needs is a system based on private sector involvement, free market competition and internal markets.

"Quite honestly, if our MPs are willing to go along with this, what exactly won't they be willing to support?"

In the same batch of emails obtained by the Guardian, Robert Hutchison, a Lib Dem councillor in Winchester, tells Pugh that "in my view is that if Lib Dem MPs vote for the bill this week — without further major amendments — it will damage the NHS and damage the party".

Charles West, one of the key party activists on the NHS, has written to party members to back an appeal against the the Lb Dem's conference committee decision not to debate the health bill at the forthcoming party conference. "I have therefore written a letter of appeal to the Federal Conference Committee against their narrow decision not to take the motion that I and over 100 conference reps submitted in June, and in case that appeal fails we are submitting an emergency motion which will achieve the same ends".

Last month Andrew George, the Lib Dem rebel on the health bill, emailed Lib Dem activists with a blunt message: "of course I'll try to influence colleagues but some are still basking in the synthetic afterglow of the post-pause Bill revision, perhaps having duped themselves that it's 'job done'! People need to wake up to the fact that we can say what we like at Conference, but the MPs main chance to influence would already have passed!"

Labour twisted the knife into the Lib Dems with the party's health spokesman John Healey arguing that Nick Clegg's claim that he had met 11 out of the 13 changes demanded by his party's spring conference resolution was "wrojng". "He's failed on seven and sallen short on six". Baroness Thornton, the party's spokesperson in the Lords, warned that the lack of scrutiny in the Commons — where 1,000 amenments mean just 40s of parliamentary to consider each one — could see the bill be put into a specialist committee to examine whether there is enough time to debate the bill.

Writing in the Guardian, Tory MP Sarah Wollaston, a former GP who had criticised the health bill, says now is the time to back the coalition's plans as "the structural changes to the NHS have passed the point of no return".

She argues instead that the bill needs to be amended to ensure that the choice of who is appointed to sit on and run the new NHS National Commissioning Board, a quango with £60bn to spend, is fairly and openly discussed.

Green Groups Urge Planning Reform Rethink

Conservationists and green campaigners urged ministers today to rethink planning reforms which they warned would see "damaging, free-for-all" developments spread.


















The call came as Planning Minister Greg Clark said that he was willing to meet the National Trust and others over fears of a "development free-for-all" under the new National Planning Policy framework.

Chief among the minister's controversial shake-ups is a "presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system.

"Local planning authorities should plan positively for new development and approve all individual proposals wherever possible," it said.

But environmental and heritage groups have criticised the proposals, saying the presumption would undermine the government's own creed of "localism" and make major projects - such as incinerators and factory farms - all but impossible to refuse.

Mr Clark said today he was happy to discuss the "wording" of the policy, but ruled out any U-turn. His critics had "the wrong end of the stick" - sustainability meant the developers had taken into account their effect on the community and environment, he said.

"The consequences would be to continue the position we are in where we are not building enough homes for the people needing them for the first time. We are contributing to homelessness, to overcrowding, to poverty."

But Friends of the Earth campaigns director Craig Bennett was unmoved. The proposals still threatened the countryside while doing little to curb climate change or carbon emissions, he said.

"It's essential that we develop the UK's huge green energy potential and build more fuel efficient and affordable homes.

"Ministers must think again or risk having another fiasco like the outcry over forests on their hands," he said.

Danny Alexander Backs Case For Strong UK Union

Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander has stepped up the case for Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom.









The SNP wants to hold a referendum towards the end of the five-year parliamentary term.

In a speech to CBI Scotland members he said the current constitutional uncertainty was in danger of distracting from the economic recovery.

He told the Glasgow gathering: "We are stronger together."

The SNP government has pledged to hold an independence referendum in the second half of the current parliamentary term.

Chair of CBI Scotland, Linda Urquhart, also addressed the annual dinner, saying that members were concerned about the commitment to a referendum and its timing.

She also called for the legality of any such vote to be "put beyond doubt".

But SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie accused CBI Scotland of "blundering into the constitutional debate".

The constitution is a reserved matter for Westminster, but the UK government has indicated it would not stand in the way of a vote in Scotland.

It is not clear yet what question or options might be included in any ballot.
'Stronger together'

Ms Urquhart said anything that added uncertainty was unwelcome at a time when economic pressure on business continued "to be relentless".

Lib Dem minister Mr Alexander said: "Scotland's road to recovery is intimately tied to recovery of the rest of the UK, and we must work together - politicians and businesses - to capitalise on every opportunity to support recovery.

"We are stronger together - and we are stronger when Scotland's two governments work together, pulling in the same direction for the people of this country."

He added: "We cannot allow the current constitutional uncertainty to distract or undermine this economic goal - Scotland is too important to the UK and the UK too important to Scotland for that.

"I hope that your voices - the voices of Scotland's economic future - will be heard as that debate develops."

Ms Urquhart said the SNP government's commitment to holding a referendum was "a matter for them", but added there was concern among CBI Scotland members "about the possible damage that could be done to Scotland by the uncertainties arising from this commitment and its timing".

She continued: "This is not helpful - but with that timescale committed to, I believe that business will consider it all the more important for any referendum to deliver a clear result: independence - yes or no - and no second questions which might produce an inconclusive result.

"The legality of any referendum must also be put beyond doubt - the constitution is a reserved matter - so the Scottish and UK governments must work together to ensure legal certainty and a decisive result."

SNP treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie questioned whether Ms Urquhart's remarks were representative of the business community in Scotland.
'Right to vote'

Mr Hosie, who is MP for Dundee East, said the CBI's credibility had previously been "undermined by blunders into the constitutional debate", claiming it had misrepresented members on issues related to powers for the Scottish Parliament.

He continued: "This is not the first time CBI Scotland has blundered into the constitutional debate and this latest intervention will fuel concerns that the CBI's leadership has a political rather than a business agenda.

"Given the overwhelming mandate the SNP secured at the recent elections, with broad support from businesses big and small, there must be a question over whether CBI is even speaking for its membership, let alone the wider business community."

Mr Hosie added: "We believe that the people of Scotland should have the right to vote in a single referendum agreed by the Scottish Parliament, on a published proposal, which is then implemented - exactly as was done for the two-question devolution referendum in 1997."

Bankers Attempt Last-Gasp Osborne Lobby Over Reform

George Osborne is meeting with Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond today as bankers launch a last gasp bid to delay banking reforms.












Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond believes banking reform could halt economic recovery.

It is expected that the independent banking commission chaired by Sir John Vickers, which is due to report within two weeks, will recommend that banks split their retail and investment arms to protect the public.

However Mr Diamond is arguing this will prevent banks from lending to small businesses and personal customers as they will have to hold more capital.

There is speculation that if the Vickers report is too strict then Barclays could respond by moving its investment banking arm, Barclays Capital, overseas.

Mr Diamond's attempts to dissuade Mr Osborne from implementing the rules in the short term follow warnings from several pro-business campaigners that major banking changes could throw the economic recovery off course.

Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Banking Association, said earlier this week that "now is not the time" for reforms.

Other heads of British banks are expected to meet with Mr Osborne over the coming days prior to the publication of the Vickers report on September 12th.

Banking reform could yet prove a contentious issue for the coalition, with business secretary Vince Cable accusing bankers of being "disingenuous in the extreme" earlier in the week.

He added: "The uncertainty and instability in the markets makes it all the more necessary that we press ahead and make our banks safe and reform them."

However Mr Osborne is thought to be more sympathetic to the banks position and appears to have an ally in the prime minister, David Cameron, who warned against reforms which put the economy at risk.

Ms Knight said Britain faced a "very difficult autumn" which would only be made worse by news of long-term reform of the banking sector.

"We have a high degree of uncertainty, market turbulence and lack of confidence that governments in other countries have got a sufficient grip on their economies," she commented.

"This is therefore the time to concentrate on economic recovery and paying back... the government and taxpayers.

"By all means think about new regulation but now is not the time to add that as an overlay with respect to costs, uncertainty or whether it is going to do anything beneficial anyway."

John Cridland, head of the Confederation of British Industry, cautioned that any major shake-up of banks at a time of economic uncertainty was "barking mad".

He told the Financial Times newspaper: "Taking action at this moment – this moment of growth peril, which weakens the ability of banks in Britain to provide the finance that businesses need to grow – is just to me barking mad.

"We don't want to force some of our remaining world class British companies to shift away from a focus on the UK because the rules have been set unilaterally in the UK.

"There's an own goal here about to be scored if we get this wrong."

Bankers Say Put Reforms On Hold Until Markets And Economy Recover

Director general of Confederation of British Industry says ploughing ahead with overhaul would be 'barking mad'.












Angela Knight, the banks' lobbyist, warns implementing reforms from ICB report could derail economic recovery.

The head of Britain's biggest lobby group will urge ministers to shelve plans for a major overhaul of banking on Tuesday, warning that they would be "barking mad" to plough ahead with it while the economy is still fragile.

Moving too quickly to separate the retail and investment arms of banks, under plans to be unveiled by the Independent Commission on Banking in two weeks, could threaten the economic recovery by stemming the flow of credit to businesses, John Cridland, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, has warned.

"Taking action at this moment – this moment of growth peril, which weakens the ability of banks in Britain to provide the finance that businesses need to grow – is just, to me, barking mad," Cridland told the Financial Times.

Cridland's intervention comes a day after similar warnings from Angela Knight, the head of the British Bankers' Association (BBA) and will add to the pressure on the chancellor to slow down the reforms.

Sir John Vickers is poised to publish his final report in a fortnight's time and is expected to recommend ringfencing banks' retail operations from their investment banking functions. George Osborne will then decide whether and at what pace to implement any reforms, which are highly sensitive in coalition politics with the Liberal Democrats pushing hard for radical change.

Previous reports have suggested that the chancellor is considering radical ring-fencing, but over a lengthy timetable of up to eight years, mindful of the immediate impact on the economy.

Any suggestion of a delay would be furiously opposed by the Lib Dems. Last night, an aide to the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: "We don't want to pre-empt Vickers but we don't see that tremors in the market are any excuse to delay. We need the framework in place as soon as possible so banks recover on the right trajectory. We recognise it can't be done overnight."

In an apparent dig at the Liberal Democrats who are insisting the reforms go ahead, Cridland expressed frustration that the issue was being sidetracked by politics. "This was all about safer banks for a safer economy. It wasn't about politics," he said. "And I get a sense that there's a little bit of 'we'll do this because of political reasons'.

"We don't want to force some of our remaining world class British companies to shift away from a focus on the UK because the rules have been set unilaterally in the UK," he said. "There's an own goal here about to be scored if we get this wrong."

Knight argued that any reforms to come out of the Commission should be put on hold until the economy has recovered and taxpayers have been repaid for bailing out the banks.

"We have a high degree of uncertainty, market turbulence and lack of confidence that governments in other countries have got a sufficient grip on their economies. We are in for a very difficult autumn," she said.

"This is, therefore, the time to concentrate on economic recovery and paying back... the government and taxpayers. By all means think about new regulation but now is not the time to add that as an overlay with respect to costs, uncertainty or whether it is going to do anything beneficial anyway."

The Treasury said in a statement: "The government set up the ICB to ask the difficult questions that weren't asked before the crisis and this is exactly what the commission is doing. We look forward to receiving the final report on 12 September."

Kenny MacAskill Looks Abroad For A Case For Single Police Force

Kenny MacAskill has outlined the case for a single police force in the face of opposition from councils and some parts of the service across Scotland.







Kenny MacAskill: ‘We will not attack pay and conditions'.

The justice secretary told a conference of police leaders from this country and across Europe that the alternative to reform was to "jettison" officers and slash their pay and conditions.

The International Policing Summit was held yesterday to hear from other countries that have faced reform, or are going through it now.

Representatives from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands all spoke about the benefits and problems of restructuring.

It followed a conference held by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) last week as part of its campaign against a single force.

The Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, has also voted against a national structure, while superintendents have backed it and chief officers have been split.

However, Mr MacAskill, who is expected to spell out the timetable for the creation of a single force following an announcement on 7 September, said it would provide "greater benefits" which other options for change do not deliver, and he was "convinced" the case had strengthened following debate over the summer.

"I can't expect people to do more with less, or the same with less, but less there will be," he said. "The way to deal with that is to change the way we do things, to do away with any unnecessary costs."

Referring to proposed changes in England and Wales, Mr MacAskill added: "We will not see officers jettisoned. We will not attack the pay and conditions of those whose service we rely on.

"That, ladies and gentlemen, is the alternative."

There were plenty of warnings from representatives of countries further along the path of police reform than Scotland.

In Northern Ireland, a huge number of watchdogs had meant the national police force had at times found itself more interested in "measuring and not on delivering", Assistant Chief Constable Alistair Finlay said.

Denmark found that reform made policing better, but not cheaper as it had hoped.

Norway - whose experience Denmark had tried to learn from - said hopes that it would deliver more uniformed officers on the streets never became a reality.

In Finland - which already had a national force, but reduced the number of districts while also creating a national board - local councillors lost all say in the way policing in their communities was delivered, although Senior Officer Konsta Korhonen told the conference this had not been seen as a bad thing.

In fact, he added, Finland had one of the highest rates of police satisfaction in the world.

Deputy Chief Inspector Simon O'Brien, of the Garda Siochána Inspectorate, warned a robust external inspector would be essential to the success of a single police force.

However, none of the delegates warned Scotland against the expected moved to a national structure.

Cosla criticised the Scottish Government for not inviting delegates from countries with strong regional policing models.

Cosla president Pat Watters said: "Why is the government unwilling to listen to any examples from abroad of strong regional policing?

"The government's unwillingness to listen is both dispiriting and disappointing - one police quango, one fire quango, one view allowed, one theme emerging - a government that, certainly on this issue, will not listen.

"It seems that the government does believe that it has a mono-poly on wisdom after all."

Alison McInnes, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' justice spokeswoman, who was in the audience, said outside the conference: "These flawed plans will only erode local accountability and community decision- making."

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has been divided on whether there should be a single force, with Colin McKerracher of Grampian, and Ian Latimer, who retired this year from Northern, being vocal in their opposition.

However, Kevin Smith of Central said he was convinced that restructuring the police force in Scotland "would not break it".

He added: "There are many, many positive things that will be achieved by a single service."

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, Scotland's most senior public prosecutor, said "certain safeguards" would need to be part of any new police structure.

He warned the police must work "for reasons of public justice" and "not to create tabloid headlines or serve the interests of the political party in power".

"Independence is crucial and should be incorporated in law," he added.

Leaked Letter Reveals Tory Welfare Reform Madness: 40,000 More Homeless Families, And An Increase In Cost

Britain’s incompetent coalition government has just hit a new low. In a leaked letter to David Cameron from the office of Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the ruinous impact of the government’s decision to cap benefits at £500 a week per family (essentially capping housing benefit at £400 a week) is exposed.














Pickles, via his private secretary Nico Heslop, told the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms that 40,000 families will be made homeless by the government’s savage welfare reforms, and that the estimated £270m saving from the benefits cap “will be wiped out by the need to divert resources to help the newly homeless and is likely to ‘generate a net cost,’” as the Guardian explained.

The limit on housing benefit was a key plank of Cameron’s manipulation of the electorate last year, with the unemployed portrayed as workshy scroungers, and housing benefit portrayed as something that is a result of their greed, rather than of landlords setting rents that are either unnecessarily high or an unfortunate response to an overheated property market.

The proposals alarmed those involved in housing and welfare, although in polls the public decided to support Cameron and his vile politics of envy, in which he pushed the notion that it was unacceptable for the unemployed to live in houses that those in work were unable to afford.

I lamented all of these developments in my articles last year, Critics Attack UK Government’s Cruel and Ill-Conceived Assault on Welfare and On Housing Benefit Cuts, British Public Reveals Shocking Lack of Empathy and Compassion, in which I also noted that, according to independent research commissioned by Shelter from the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research at the University of Cambridge, an estimated 134,000 households “will either be evicted or forced to move when the cuts come in next year as they will be unable to negotiate cheaper rents.”

Shelter also noted, “Of these, an estimated 35,000 households will approach their local authorities for housing assistance, and where councils have a legal duty to help they will face costs of up to £120 million a year providing temporary accommodation such as hostels or bed and breakfasts,” adding that these costs “would cancel out a fifth of the £600 million the Treasury has said it will save from the cuts in 2012, the first full year they are in force.”

Eric Pickles’ intervention provides different figures, but the impact is, if anything, even more damaging, as his letter suggests that these changes, impacting on 40,000 families and creating, in London, what Boris Johnson appropriately criticised as “Kosovo-style social cleansing, ” will not save any money at all, and will actually end up costing more that leaving all these people where they are.

There is more in Eric Pickles’ thoroughly alarming letter — an acknowledgment that “We are already seeing increased pressures on homelessness services,” that local authorities “will have to calculate and administer reduced Housing Benefit to keep within the cap,” and that plans to build 56,000 new, “affordable” homes will, as a result, be savaged. Involving a distressing proposal to oblige or allow social housing landlords to charge rents at 80 percent of market rents, the success of this venture depends, in Pickles’ view, on the availability of housing benefit, whereas the cap will, he estimates, lead to 40 percent of the new homes not being built at all.

Pickles’ letter also highlights a particularly cruel benefit-cutting proposal, warning of a PR disaster were it to be implemented. “I understand that there may be a suggestion around requiring families to divert a percentage of their non-housing (benefit) income to cover housing costs,” he writes, adding, “It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate (likely to dwarf anything already seen on the HB only caps) and the difficulty of justifying this in policy terms as well as implementation.”

That really ought to tell you all you need to know — that the Prime Minister and his advisers, as well as happily making at least 40,000 people homeless, and striving to eradicate social housing as a valid form of not-for-profit housing, also propose forcing poor families to use the money provided for their living costs (and, for example, child benefit) to be taken away from them to subsidise their rents.

This, of course, is a sign of the essential meanness of spirit of this particular pair of privileged Etonians and their colleagues (including their Lib Dem stooges), as they work out how to kick the poor as savagely as possible, but it is not the only problem, of course. As with almost every aspect of the government’s proposed cuts — and as Eric Pickles pointed out so significantly — the sums don’t even add up. As a result, the welfare reforms join a list of costing disasters that show up the PM and his Chancellor George Osborne as the most incompetent political double-act in living memory, so driven by an ideological desire to destroy the British state that they can’t even make a valid economic case for their reforms.

Think of the savage “reform” of university funding, in which, having eradicated state support for arts, humanities and social science degrees, and having scrapped the fee limit of £3290 a year, the government had the nerve to complain when universities largely decided to charge fees of £9000 a year. Most universities need to do this simply to survive, as it costs more than £9000 a year to teach a student, but the government never thought about this, and is now whingeing about how much it will all cost.

Think of the brutal cuts to legal aid, which are supposed to save £350 million, but will leave ordinary people with almost no ability to seek legal assistance in cases involving debt, employment, housing, family law and criminal negligence. This appears to be a huge financial saving, but as legal experts have warned, and as Zoe Wiliiams explained in a Guardian article on June 22, “This might be a cut, but it isn’t a saving. It will cost us a fortune.” Back in February, judges warned that “a massive increase in ‘litigants in person’ — ordinary people appearing in court without a lawyer — will slow down the court system and may cost more money down the line,” as the Guardian explained. The judges’ council, chaired by head of the judiciary, Lord Igor Judge, stated, “The proposals would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice … at a time when courts are having to cope in any event with closures, budgetary cut-backs and reductions in staff numbers. There is a real question whether the cost savings arising from the proposed cutbacks in the scope of civil and family legal aid would be offset by the additional costs imposed on the system by dealing with the increase in litigants in person.”

The Law Society has launched a campaign against the proposed cuts, establishing a website, Sound Off for Justice, describing its own proposals for saving £384 million “while still protecting access to justice.” The Law Society explains, “Our savings protect the continued provision of legal aid for the neediest in society, while the MoJ proposals would remove the right to legal aid that supported the families affected by the Hillsborough disaster, the Thalidomide scandal, and the Clapham rail crash.”

Think also of the planned privatization by stealth of the NHS. Resistance to the reality of the plans, revealed through the legally enforceable obligation for competition in every aspect of the NHS, has been rigorous, and critics have pointed out how throughly disastrous the government’s plans would be for huge swathes of the NHS in which enforced competition is entirely inappropriate. The government now claims to be revising its plans, but ministers cannot be trusted until the entire bill has been scrapped, because the main reason for the reforms is the ongoing privatisation of the NHS. This can only cost more and result in worse healthcare, because corporate interests don’t have a social conscience, and are designed solely to maximise profits at all costs.
32 years after Margaret Thatcher began the destruction of British society, we need a new way of thinking, which no one in the mainstream appears able to provide. Cameron and Osborne may be spectacular examples of arrogance, stupidity and callousness, but they’re also, essentially, just tinkering with the broken template provided by Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, which failed so abysmally with the financial crash of 2008, but whose true impact remains unacknowledged.