DERBYSHIRE MP POISED TO PULL THE PLUG ON RAIL JOBS IN DERBY

LISTENING to Transport Minister Simon Burns in a pre-Christmas parliamentary debate, confirming the betrayal of Derby's proud rail industry, was among my bitterest moments since coming into politics.

The battle to persuade the Government to rethink its decision not to award Bombardier the Thameslink contract last year has been arduous and enduring. It involved hundreds of hours of commitment from politicians, including myself, trade unions, business leaders and tens of thousands of Derby people who signed petitions and protested.

Now, another nail has been hammered into the coffin after Mr Burns confirmed that commercial agreement had been reached with rival bidder Siemens. The final hurdle is "financial close", which basically means checking that Siemens has adequate finance in place to deliver the contract. And Mr Burns says that is expected next month.

The backhanded manner in which the Tory-led Government ignored endless well-founded concerns over its process and decisions is scandalous. It makes it difficult to brush myself down and take any satisfaction from giving it my all and trying my hardest. Instead, as we near the end of this 18-month campaign, I'm left with a feeling of emptiness and anger. The arguments have not been considered and rejected but ignored and neglected.

In the pre-Christmas House of Commons debate that I secured, Mr Burns failed to respond to my points about serious questions over the legitimacy of the Government's role in this contracting process. Nor did he respond to challenges about why Siemens Project Ventures GmbH was allowed to be part of the process, despite EU regulations which should have precluded it. He didn't respond either to the expert evidence I cited, which had been considered by the Transport Select Committee, showing Siemens' credit rating gave it an unfair and discriminatory advantage.

Even now, it beggars belief that the traitorous decision over Thameslink came just three months after Prime Minister brought his Cabinet to Derby. Mr Cameron said the point of coming to Derby was "to ask one fundamental question – what can Government do to help the economy to rebalance...to invest and employ people". His words ring very hollow after doing the opposite.

Remarkably, it is still within the gift of Secretary of State and Derbyshire MP Patrick McLoughlin to put the brakes on this process.

Although I am an eternal optimist, even I don't have an ounce of hope left that it will happen. He and his predecessors, Justine Greening and Philip Hammond, have dug themselves a deep hole with their bloody-minded determination not to show weakness by changing their view. The irony is that it would actually show incredible strength to finally admit they got it wrong.

The truth is this whole affair has been a shocking aberration and yet another example of why this Government is not fit for purpose. But in just under two-and-a-half years the people of Derby and Derbyshire can give their verdict at the ballot box.

TORY-LIB DEM GOVERNMENT FIRE CUTS WILL PUT LIVES AT RISK

The public and firefighters are being put at risk as a result of irresponsible cuts being forced on fire authorities across England.

I wrote to the Fire Minister, Brandon Lewis, before the Government announced its latest funding plans for the fire and rescue service. I asked him to spare it from further punitive cuts, but my exhortations fell on deaf ears and the next wave of reckless cuts were announced on 19th December.

Almost 5,000 firefighters have either already been laid off or will be over the next two years in addition to more than 1,000 key support staff. Scores of fire stations and dozens of appliances will also be lost across England.

Only last month we saw what an important role the fire and rescue services play in dealing with flooding across the country. But this is not a statutory function and the latest cuts will make it increasingly difficult for them to respond future flooding episodes. Fire chiefs are warning that they simply will not be able to cope if the planned cuts go ahead on top of those they have already had to absorb. In other words this Government is putting lives in jeopardy.

By contrast, under Labour, the number of people killed in fires fell by 30 per cent between 2000 and 2010. The number of fire casualties also dropped by a massive 40 per cent during the same period. The Metropolitan fire authorities – that are set to absorb 62 per cent of the cuts between them – have warned Ministers that the progress made in the last decade is likely to be reversed under the Tory-Lib Dem Government.

The public have a right to expect protection from properly resourced emergency services. The Government should urgently change course.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 12: “LOW-INCOME FAMILIES ARE USUALLY SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES”

Whilst the risk of poverty is greater amongst single parent families compared to couple families (not surprisingly given that single parent families are reliant on one individual being able to bring in a wage), the majority of children in poverty are in couple families.

Two thirds (65%) of children living in poverty are in couple households.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 11: “THERE ARE LOTS OF CHILDREN LIVING IN FAMILIES WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED”

There is sometimes confusion between data showing workless households and households where no one has ever worked.  Yet the difference between these figures is great.  Preventing temporary worklessness and supporting parents when this is unavoidable should be a greater focus for policy makers interested in tackling child poverty.

12.8% of households containing dependent children are currently classed as workless households.

Just 2.1% of children are classed as living in households where no one has ever worked (and this includes households where parents may have never worked for good reason – ie. disability or longstanding illness, or where parents have recently finished studying and have only just entered the labour market).

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 10: “MOST FAMILIES IN POVERTY HAVE LARGE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN”

Larger families are at greater risk of poverty than families with one or two children, largely because of the extra cost of having more children entails and greater barrier to labour market participation it can create. However, it is wrong to say that having 3 or more children is the experience most common to families in poverty.

Over two thirds (68%) of children in poverty live in families with one or two children.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 9: “THE STATE PAYS FOR WORKLESS PEOPLE TO LIVE IN MANSIONS”

The truth is that only a small number of households were receiving support through Housing Benefit worth £50,000 or more a year before a cap came in on the amount of support a household can receive through Housing Benefit (£20,800 a year).

In March 2012 just 110 households in receipt of Housing Benefit received over £50,000 a year (out of 5,014,650 recipients)

According to the latest DWP figures, the average Housing Benefit award is £4651.92 a year.

In fact, only 0.037% of Housing Benefit claimants are receiving more than £30,000 per annum and most of those are receiving between £30,000 and £40,000.

Surprisingly a third of children in poverty live in owner-occupier families with around a third in social housing and a third in privately rented housing.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 8: “MOST PEOPLE ON BENEFITS ARE FIDDLING THE SYSTEM”

This just isn’t the case.  The amount we lose to benefit fraud is comparatively small and has fallen substantially since the late 1990s. It is also less than the amount we lose to errors by those operating the system.

In 2011-12, overpayment due to fraud and error in respect of DWP benefits is provisionally estimated to have remained at around £3.2bn (2% of total DWP benefit spend), of which £1.1bn was due to fraud (0.8% of benefit spending). Also, an estimated £1.3bn was underpaid in error.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 7: “MOST WELFARE SPENDING GOES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT-OF-WORK AND OF WORKING AGE”

This is far from the case. Most of the social security bill goes to pensioners, not to people of working age.

Payments aimed at pension-age recipients (such as state pension, Pension Credit etc.) account for 54% of total social security spend, projected to rise to 58% by 2016-17.

Expenditure by the DWP and HMRC on benefit payments, tax credits and state pensions is forecast to be £202.9 billion in 2012/13, accounting for 30% of total public expenditure and 13% of GDP.

And a large proportion of the social security budget spent on those of working age goes towards subsiding low paid jobs – through tax credits and increasingly through Housing Benefit.

In 2010/11, the vast majority of the £28.54 billion spent on tax credit entitlements by HMRC (£20.94 billion or 73.3%) went to working families (i.e. those working 16 hours or more a week).

Amongst those who received tax credits in 2010/11, in-work households made up the vast majority of claimants (76.82%).

Increased spending on subsidising low-pay accounted for 79.2% of the increase in spending on tax credits between 2004/05 and 2010/11.

The number of working people claiming Housing Benefit in England and Wales has risen by 417,830 since 2009.  Nearly 10,000 more working families every month are now reliant on Housing Benefit to help pay their private rent.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 6: “MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED HAVE BEEN OUT-OF-WORK FOR A LONG-TIME”

Whilst long-term unemployment is a problem for those people it affects, it is wrong to frame the debate about parental unemployment and poverty around long-term unemployment or to suggest that many parents ‘choose’ to stay unemployed and don’t work for long periods of time.  Most people don’t stay out-of-work for more than a year and the real problem is people who find themselves regularly in and out-of-work, are trapped in the no pay/low pay cycle.

Most people on Job Seekers Allowance claim for less than a year.  In fact, 55% of those currently receiving JSA have been claiming for less than 6 months.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 5: “POVERTY IS CAUSED BY PARENTS CHOOSING NOT TO WORK”

Some argue that child poverty is driven by parents ‘choosing’ not to work. Actually, the evidence shows that child poverty is driven by a lack of jobs, a lack of full-time jobs and a lack of jobs paying decent wages.

60% of children in poverty have at least one parent in-work.

A record number of people, 1.42million are working part-time because they can’t get full-time work.

5 million people in the UK are being paid less than the living wage.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 4: “PROVIDING EXTRA FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO FAMILIES IN POVERTY IS SPENT ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS”

In some instances parents in poverty are portrayed as being unable to manage their money effectively and ‘wasting’ money on drugs and alcohol. In fact this runs counter to the evidence and experience of groups like Save the Children who work with parents, which shows that low income parents are often adept, out of necessity, at managing on tight budgets and protecting their children from the worst effects of poverty:

Low income parents are more likely to spend extra financial support provided through the benefits system on their children than better off parents.

While the impact of having a parent who misuses alcohol or drugs is very significant, the number of families with such parents is small. The most recent data available shows these families are atypical across the population: only 2.7% of families in Britain have an alcohol dependent parent, and 0.9% a drug dependent parent.

The truth is that parents on low incomes are cutting back on things for themselves so that their children don’t suffer. Research by Save the Children found:

Well over half (61%) of parents in poverty say they have cut back on food

Over a quarter (26%) say they have skipped meals in the past year.

Whilst alcohol and drug misuse combines with other factors (like poor diet and bad housing) to have a greater detrimental impact on people from low income background compared to those from higher socio-economic groups, it is worth bearing in mind the following:

Children from middle class families are more likely to have tried alcohol by age 12 than children from low income homes.

A recent 4Children report rightly highlighted the impact drinking by parents has on parenting ability and child development and also that the “households most likely to drink were the wealthiest - with almost four times as many families in the top-earning groups, drinking every day compared to the poorest.”

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 3: “OUT-OF-WORK FAMILIES GET BENEFITS FOR HAVING CHILDREN WHILST IN-WORK FAMILIES DON’T”

It isn’t just out-of-work families who receive extra social security payments when they have a child. At present all families get extra social security payments when they have a child through Child Benefit payments. In addition, many low to modestly paid working families receive extra payments through the tax credit system and the state spends more on Child Tax Credits for working families than it does on out-of-work families.

In 2010/11 HMRC spent £12.8 billion on in-work Child Tax Credit compared to £7.6 billion on out-of-work Child Tax Credit.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 2: “IT’S POSSIBLE TO LEAD A LAVISH LIFESTYLE BY CHOOSING NOT WORK AND HAVE MORE CHILDREN”

It seems unlikely that large numbers of parents are choosing to remain out-of-work and to have more children to fund a ‘lavish lifestyle’:

Families with 3 or more children are more likely to be in poverty than those with 1 or 2 children (35% of children in families with three of more children are in poverty, compared to around a quarter of children in smaller families).

Rather than living ‘lavish’ lifestyles, out-of-work families with 3 or more children are less likely to able to afford a basic standard of living.

An out-of-work couple family with 3 children (with typical housing costs) is likely to be around £215 a week short of what they need to meet minimum living standards (a similar family with 1 child is £171 a week short, and a similar family with two children is £179 a week short).

An out-of-work single parent with 3 children (with typical housing costs) is likely to be around £271 a week short of what they need to meet minimum living standards (a similar family with 1 child is £193 a week short, and a similar family with two children is £230 a week short).

It is clear that the amount of extra support provided to families who have an additional child doesn’t sufficiently meet their additional financial needs. According to a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report:

Having children leaves adults on benefits worse off. Additional state support for families with children is lower than a child’s minimum needs.

Child Benefit meets only 20% of childhood costs on average for out-of-work couple families and just 18% for out-of-work single parent families. Child Benefit has been frozen since 2010 and will have lost 10% of its value by 2014.

MYTHS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY 1: “THERE ARE LOTS OF PARENTS WHO ARE OUT-OF-WORK WITH LARGE NUMBERS OF CHILDREN”

Whilst government rhetoric has suggested it wants to put an end to out-of-work parents having more and more children, the evidence suggests that the number of out-of-work parents with more than 2 children is relatively small:

Only 8% of those on out-of-work benefits have 3 or more children.

There is an average of 1.8 children per family in the UK. There is little marked difference in terms of the average number of children per family when broken down by the socio-economic status of the head of household.

Of the 973,000 families with three or more children in receipt of tax credits in 2010/11, 65.47% were classed as in-work (i.e. working 16 hours or more a week).v

A 2006 study by the Department for Work and Pensions found that the rate of couple families with at least one parent in-work (working 16 hours or more a week) differs little between families with three children (90%) and families with one (92%) or two (94%) children.

The same study found that a majority of families with 4 (80%) 5 or more (67%) have at least one parent working 16 hours or more a week.

So whilst the likelihood of either parent working 16 hours or more appears to reduce in households with 4 or more children (perhaps not surprising given the extra childcare costs and parenting commitments this requires), there seems to be little evidence to suggest that either a) a majority of large families are workless families or that b) workless families with large numbers of children make up a significant proportion of those claiming out-of-work benefits.

GOVT RESPONSE PATHETIC AS HOUSING CRISIS DEEPENS

WE have heard of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut but the Government’s ham-fisted approach to solving Britain’s housing crisis is more like using a feather to crack a rock.

Homelessness and rough sleeping are on the rocketing, housing waiting lists are rising and rent prices are going through the roof, and what does the Government propose as the answer?

While Labour proposes generating £2bn by taxing bank bonuses so we can build 25,000 more affordable homes, fund 100,000 jobs and kick-start our economy, the Tory-led coalition has a far more novel solution.

Let’s build more conservatories.

The Department for Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on plans to make it easier for homes to be improved by easing the planning restrictions so more can be done without planning consent under “permitted development”.

Now I have no particular issue with that proposal per se, but I do feel it rather drastically misses the point.

What we need are real and immediate solutions to reduce waiting lists, ease homelessness and remove the need for rough sleeping. This proposal just tinkers around the edges.

The Government argument is that, by doing this, more families will be encouraged to undertake these builds, triggering work for the building industry. There is some logic in that, but the difference it will make is a drop in the ocean.

Not only that, but it demonstrates how completely out-of-touch this Government is.

The tiny difference this proposal will make to the building industry will not provide roofs over the heads of the people who currently don’t have them – unless those fortunate enough to be able to afford to build a conservatory in the current economic climate plan to use their new extensions to house those in need.

A very noble gesture that would be too, but even in my socialist mind I accept such altruism is rather beyond realistic expectations.

This is a very real problem. In the East Midlands, homelessness went up by 12 per cent in the latest quarter results for 2012, while rough sleeping in the region rose by an incredible 55.4 per cent in the Government’s first year in power.

Homelessness fell by 70 per cent under Labour, from 135,000 in 2003/4 to 40,000 in 2009/10. Two million homes were built by Labour between 1997-2000, while a million more families were able to buy their own homes.

I am not blind to the fact the global economic crisis places Britain in a different position today. But that doesn’t change the fact that we need imaginative solutions resolve this problem.

For example, if the Government agreed to Labour’s proposal to use the cash from the forthcoming 4G network auction to fund a £3-4bn windfall to kick start house building, 40,000 more jobs would be created and 6,500 homes built in the region.

That is the sort of solution we need.

So I have no particular issue with the proposals about conservatories. But I do hope that, once that small matter is resolved, the Government decides to turn its attention to the rather more significant challenges for which it is responsible.

Too many families face an uncertain future this Christmas. But I dearly hope that a great deal fewer families are in this position next year.

GOVT PREPARING PRE CHRISTMAS BETRAYAL OF BRITISH TRAIN MANUFACTURING

FEW issues have demonstrated the Government’s stubborn resistance to logic, common sense and overwhelming evidence quite like the shambolic mishandling of the Thameslink contract.

It is a year-and-a-half since then-Transport Secretary Philip Hammond controversially picked German manufacturer Siemens ahead of Derby trainmaker Bombardier for the lucrative deal, instantly sending thousands of midlands workers into unemployment.

Two ministers later and the deal still hasn’t been signed, but current incumbent Patrick McLoughlin, just like Justine Greening before him, seems equally as blind to the abundance of evidence that his department got it wrong.

In Derby, we have felt an incredibly traumatic rollercoaster of emotions. At first, it was anger at the Government’s apparent belligerence and ignorance in taking no account whatsoever of the devastating economic impact of sending the £1.4bn contract overseas.

That was swiftly followed by disappointment and bemusement when it became clear ministers had no intention of budging, despite a 50,000-plus name petition and 10,000 people taking to the streets in protest.

The months that have followed have featured repeated bouts of hope followed by frustration as each new piece of evidence that is unearthed is either dismissed or ignored by the Government.

And now we’re back to anger again – as it becomes increasingly obvious that the Government’s resolve to see this one through is nothing to do with sense or necessity but everything to do with a bloody-minded determination not to buckle, however compelling the case that they ought to.

It is like a scene from Fawlty Towers in which Basil keeps digging, digging and digging some more until he has no choice but to meet an inevitable calamitous conclusion. The big difference is that Mr McLoughlin’s failings, like those of Ms Greening and Mr Hammond before him, simply aren’t funny.

The latest evidence to come to light, and to be roundly ignored by the Government, is the somewhat fundamental concern that the Thameslink trains simply aren’t going to be compatible for wide swathes of British tracks – and that Siemens has no existing ability to rectify that.

By contrast, Bombardier not only boasts a compatible model already, but had it been made preferred bidder instead of Siemens, it would have been able to begin production immediately.

And ability to act immediately is another major concern with Siemens right now.

It might have escaped Mr McLoughlin’s attention, but it hasn’t escaped the notice of the German media that Siemens has suffered significant delays in providing for another contract it won; this time for Deutsche Bahn, the national rail company in Germany. The mixed-product manufacturer has blamed system failures but is reported in some of Germany’s largest selling national newspapers to simply be over-stretched.

This is all on top of the many concerns that have been raised over the original procurement process, with even the Transport Select Committee hearing strong evidence that Siemens was handed an unfair advantage over Bombardier.

And, let’s be honest, the farce over the suspended West Coast Mainline contract hardly fills you with confidence that the Department for Transport is quite as au fait with these dealings as one might expect.

Then there is the fact that the Government has significantly moved the goalposts since it originally contracted for Thameslink. It is now anticipated that a “super-franchise” will be created, also involving some of the Southern and South Eastern services.

This is significant because even if the Government doesn’t want to admit it got it wrong the first time round, herein lay a wonderful opportunity for ministers to revisit the original decision without necessarily losing face. It was an opportunity they missed and, sadly, I am increasingly led to believe it is because they simply don’t have the bottle.

I hope I am wrong. Financial close has not yet been reached on the Thameslink deal, although the whispers are that it is perilously close.

But there is still time for Mr McLoughlin to do the decent thing and ask his department to revisit the original decision in light of the wealth of evidence that has become apparent since then. I would hope that even if his ministerial duty to make the right choice for the country doesn’t persuade him to do that, then his loyalty to the Derbyshire public who elected him might.

If that doesn’t happen, then Mr McLoughlin and his Government will just have to cross their fingers that the vast majority of us who can see what they can’t have got it wrong. For if we haven’t, I can assure them that all 50,000 of us who signed that petition will be watching the delivery of that contract like a hawk and will be quick to remind them of the dozens of warnings they failed to heed before awarding it.

GOVT’S EMPLOYEE SHAREHOLDER SCHEME IS YET ANOTHER TORY LIB DEM CON

Clause 25 of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill creates a new ‘employee shareholder’ employment status. Employee shareholders would be given £2,000 or more in shares, exempt from capital gains tax, but would forfeit a number of employment rights, including:

• protection against unfair dismissal;

• the right to request flexible working;

• the right to request time to train;

• certain parental leave rights; and

• the right to statutory redundancy pay.

The government argues that the measure will promote growth by encouraging small, fast growing businesses to hire new employees, suggesting that the risks and administrative burdens of doing so will be minimised. The government’s case does not stand up to scrutiny:

• it has become clear that there are no real economic benefits to the proposal: in practice, small businesses which hired employee shareholders would not reduce risks or administrative costs;

• against this, the ‘tax planning’ loophole the measure introduces has a definite and potentially very high cost to the Exchequer;

• the measure will erode employee-employer trust and set back work to promote the growth of true employee ownership in the UK;

• the proposal will undermine work to realise the economic benefits of flexible working, which rests on the government communicating effectively the strong case for flexible working to businesses; and

• the proposal is not family friendly and is likely to encourage discrimination.

MISOGYNISTIC?

The employee shareholder status will not be voluntary for many. Those who are unemployed on Jobseekers Allowance are obliged to accept reasonable offers of employment or face financial sanctions. Many others who are seeking work but not receiving a benefit will feel obliged to accept an employee shareholder role. There will therefore be people who have no real choice but to accept an employee shareholder contract.

The Fawcett Society highlighted in its consultation response that women are likely to be disproportionately affected by this policy:

• women, particularly those with caring responsibilities, comprise the group most likely to exercise the specific rights that are part of the employee shareholder status;

• women who rely more heavily on part-time employment to balance work against caring responsibilities will find it more difficult to take up the employee shareholder status and are more likely to be discriminated against in the recruitment process, either by being pressured by employers to take up the status as a condition of their job offer, or being disregarded due to the likelihood they will wish exercise excluded rights; and

• framing maternity provision and flexible working as ‘red tape’ may further entrench pregnancy discrimination against women in the workplace. Maternity rights and employment regulation that enables parents to balance work and family responsibilities have been key drivers in giving women greater access to work and an independent income.

The Fourth Work Life Balance Survey shows that 50% of women, compared with 27% of men, had taken up part-time working in the last 12 months. Similarly, tables in the survey show that 48% of men with dependent children take up flexible working options compared with 59% of women with dependent children, and when deciding whether to work for an employer, the survey found that 53% of women consider the availability of flexible working to be important or very important, compared with only 31% of men.

The Government responded to concerns that its proposal had unfairly targeted the maternity leave return to work notice by setting it at 16 weeks, whilst leaving the notice period associated with additional paternity leave unchanged, by adding the 16 week requirement to APL for employee shareholders. Whilst the Fawcett Society agrees there should be consistency and equality in terms of notice periods for both men and women taking parental leave, it believes the requirement for giving notice to return from such leave should remain at eight weeks.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns that the employee shareholder proposal will encourage discrimination that will falls within the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. That Act was designed to ensure consideration of equality issues in the policy development process precisely so that the government can identify and avoid instances in which its policies will result in discrimination. It is irresponsible for the government to propose, or Parliament to pass, legislation that knowingly fosters discrimination.

Limiting the right to request flexible working for employee shareholders is likely to prove unhelpful to both those employees and their employers. Parents exercising their rights to parental leave or the right to request flexible working need the assurance that they will not suffer detriment as a result of exercising those rights.

Employers, many of whom already find the overlap between flexible working and equality legislation difficult, will need to check which workers have which rights. It would be easy, for example, to turn down a request from a mother for flexible working and fail to consider any potential indirect sex discrimination claim. As the EHRC has highlighted, removing parental leave and flexible working rights is likely to encourage more tribunal claims through discrimination law, increasing costs to employers.

THE LEVESON REPORT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REAL PRESS REFORM

The evidence at the Leveson inquiry, including the harrowing testimony of victims such as the Dowlers and the McCanns, has shown the need for real reform of the press complaints system and to ensure that any new system is truly independent of both politicians and the press.

A strong, irreverent, fearless press that holds the powerful to account is essential to democracy. But a free press must also be a clean press – it can’t hold power to account if it is abusing power itself.

This is why the Labour Party has consistently supported a new press complaints system that is independent of both government interference and interference by the industry, able to enforce its rulings against all newspapers and accessible to everyone.

Lord Justice Leveson’s report recommends a new system of independent self-regulation, guaranteed by law, which the Labour Party accepts. It would be independent of politicians and the industry, should include all major newspapers and will be free for all to use.

Labour is now taking part in cross-party talks to implement the Leveson recommendations. There is an obligation and an opportunity to bring about real change in the way our media operates and we must not let down the families like the McCanns and the Dowlers – and the wider public – who are counting on parliament to make the changes that are needed.

NHS SET FOR A DIFFICULT WINTER THANKS TO CAMERON’S CUTS

Before the election, David Cameron promised that he would “cut the deficit, not the NHS”. This week, we got confirmation that while the deficit is rising, the NHS is being cut by the Conservatives.

David Cameron has come to the Commons time after time to claim that he is increasing real-terms spending on the NHS. But this week, the head of the independent UK Statistics Authority said that real-terms spending on the NHS has fallen the last two years.

It’s the same old story. You can’t trust the Tories with the National Health Service.

The cuts are particularly worrying as winter takes hold and we’re seeing the reality of the NHS under the Tory-led Government. This week, the Care Quality Commission’s survey of patients’ A&E experience revealed that the Tories’ complacent spin is at odds with what’s happening on the ground. Ambulances are queuing for longer outside A&E, patients are being left on trolleys for hours on end and according to an independent survey, hospitals are “full to bursting”.

It is becoming clearer by the day: despite doctors’ and nurses’ heroic efforts, the NHS is struggling – and the Government is doing nothing about it.

UNIVERSITY APPLICATIONS ARE FALLING

The number of students applying for a university place is declining following the Tory-Lib Dem Government’s decision to triple tuition fees.

The university think tank million+ has been carrying out some analysis of recent data supplied by the Universities & Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) on applications for university entry 2013/14.  Their analysis highlights that early trends in applications should give cause for concern about a potential decline.

The research highlights a worrying fall in applications. To date for 2013-14 which, if borne out by the end of the application cycle, could represent the lowest number of applications since before 2006.

There has also been a fall of 14% in applications for all courses, excluding applications to Oxbridge, medicine, dentistry, veterinary courses compared to the same point in 2012-13.

Moreover, the demographic decline in the number of 18 year olds does not explain the size of the fall in university acceptances for 2012-13. Nor does it account for the early indications of a fall in applications for 2013-14.

Government ministers, particularly Liberal Democrat ministers, like to claim the increase in tuition fees is not making any difference. But the million+ research demonstrates the damaging impact of the decision by Lib Dem MPs to break their solemn pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.

MORE ILLUSORY INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING?

The Chancellor seems to have finally admitted that abolishing the Building Schools for the Future programme and his other deep cuts to infrastructure investment were a catastrophic mistake which cost jobs and weakened our economy.

But this extra funding for new free schools will be smaller than the huge cuts he made two years ago to school and college buildings.  And George Osborne must explain which frontline services, like the police and social care, he will cut further to pay for this latest u-turn.

In last year’s Autumn Statement, Ministers boasted that their infrastructure plan would boost the economy, but none of the road schemes they announced have even started construction.  The Government needs to ensure that this funding urgently gets through on the ground.

GOVERNMENT STILL DOESN’T HAVE A STRATEGY FOR GROWTH

The Tory-Lib Dem Government is failing on growth. Their policies are causing uncertainty, deterring investment and holding regional economies back.

They mistakenly rushed through the scrapping of Labour’s successful Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) without putting in to place an adequate replacement.

Their replacement for RDAs, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), have not been given the powers or resources to drive growth in the regions.

And their ‘flagship’ Regional Growth Fund (RGF) has proved to be a fiasco, failing to meet regional needs, with millions of pounds still sitting in Government coffers and failing to get to businesses to secure jobs.

Over the past year net lending to businesses has fallen by £13.5bn the recent Bank of England Trends in Lending selected data sets have found.

TAX RISE ON THE RICH?

George Osborne repeated his dubious assertion that “we’re all in it together” dubious his Autumn Statement today. The basis for this absurd claim was that the richest in society would be paying even more.

But these claims don’t stand up to scrutiny. The Government has given over 8,000 millionaires a tax cut of on average £107,000.

And what George Osborne announced is smaller than the £3 billion tax cut for the rich he is pressing ahead with in April.

The changes to pension tax relief announced today simply reverses the £1.6 billion George Osborne gave back to people earning over £150,000 when he scrapped Labour’s cuts to pension tax relief in 2010.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF ERIC PICKLES

This awful Government has once again displayed its utter contempt for local services, with local government once again bearing the brunt of further swingeing cuts.

The services provided by local councils have already been forced to shoulder the greatest burden of the cuts to public spending, and George Osborne has come back for more.

It rather the begs the question, what is the point of Eric Pickles who has done nothing to stand up for local government. The extra two per cent cut in 2014/15 that was announced today is unsustainable.

Local authorities already faced a £1 billion cut to funding for 2013/14. This was on top of the 28 per cent reduction set out in the spending review and the further 2 per cent now announced today for 2014-15.

Local councils have sought to manage the worst impact of the cuts so far by maximising efficiencies and redesigning services. But these further cuts will see frontline services being put to the sword. But the Government is impervious to the impact this will have on residents who rely on and value.

But the ideological zeal with which they are shrinking the role of the state is blinding them to them economic impacts of this folly. The fact is, additional cuts to local government funding will further undermine the national economy. Limiting councils’ ability to invest in growth-generating services and projects will unnecessarily prolong the economic downturn.

BRITISH PEOPLE ON LOW AND MIDDLE INCOMES ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR GOVT FAILURE

George Osborne is pressing ahead with a £3 billion tax cut for the highest earners in the country – worth an average of £107,000 for 8,000 people earning over £1 million.

Yet at the same time people on low and middle incomes are being hit hard with higher VAT, the granny tax, and real terms cuts to tax credits, jobseekers allowance and child benefit.

The £1 billion changes to pension tax relief announced today are less than the £1.6 billion George Osborne gave back to people earning over £150,000 when he scrapped Labour’s cuts to pension tax help for the highest earners.

AUTUMN STATEMENT SHOWS OSBORNE FAILING ON THE DEFICIT

George Osborne has been forced to announce that he will not meet his fiscal rule to get the debt down by 2015.

The Prime Minister’s pledge to balance the books by 2015 will also not be met until 2018.

Borrowing and debt figures have been revised up this year and for future years.

The government is set to borrow £212 billion more than they planned – once you take out the transfer of funding from the Bank of England – and more than the plans the government inherited and condemned at the time for not going far enough.

And the reason why borrowing and debt has been revised up is because slow growth and high unemployment means tax revenues are down and the benefits bill is up.

The only reason borrowing is forecast to fall this year is because the Government has added the 4G mobile spectrum auction to this year’s figures – even though government delays mean the auction hasn’t happened yet. Without the £3.5bn receipts penciled in from the 4G sale, borrowing would be forecast to be £2bn higher this year than last year.

AUTUMN STATEMENT SHOWS GOVT FAILING ON JOBS AND GROWTH

This Government is presiding over a shrinking economy this year with growth of -0.1%.

Growth forecasts have been downgraded yet again this year, next year and every year up to 2016.

Over the last two years our economy has grown by just 0.6% compared to the 4.6% the government promised, 3.6% in Germany and 4.1% in America.

Nearly 1 million young people are out of work, long-term unemployment is rising and the claimant count is forecast to be 275,000 a year higher in 2015

Prices are forecast to carry on rising faster than wages for another year until 2014.

It is clear that ordinary people are paying the price of his ideological austerity experiment that plainly isn’t working

LABOUR FORCES U-TURN ON FUEL DUTY

It is good news that George Osborne listened to Labour’s calls for January’s fuel duty rise to be scrapped – even though Conservative and Lib Dem MPs voted against this just a few weeks ago.

With our recovery so fragile and the cost of living rising, this would have been the wrong tax rise at the wrong time.

In government, Labour postponed or cancelled planned fuel duty rises on 13 occasions – including at the height of the global financial crisis.

George Osborne’s VAT rise has added around 3p to the price of a litre of petrol.

CHANCELLOR FALTERS ON ENERGY-EFFICIENT HOMES

George Osborne’s failure to support energy efficiency in the home is a missed opportunity to help boost growth, cut carbon emissions and reduce householders’ fuel bills, says the Federation of Master Builders (FMB).

In response to the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement, Brian Berry, the Chief Executive of the FMB, said: “The Chancellor should have taken the opportunity to support the Government’s own Green Deal energy-efficiency initiative by introducing more incentives, including a lower rate of VAT on housing repair, maintenance and improvement work to encourage homeowners to take advantage of the Green Deal . Local building companies are best placed for this type of work, but are reluctant to jump through the hoops involved without stronger market demand."

Berry said: "The £5billion for capital investment is good news and clearly shows the Government recognises the positive impact a growing construction sector has on the economy. However, the Chancellor should have done more beyond the measures to support 120,000 new homes already announced. That is just half the number of new homes needed each year to meet current demand.

“Industry forecasts show public housing activity is likely to fall further between now and the next election in 2015. If the Government cannot find additional funding for affordable housing it must redouble efforts to improve access to mortgages so the private housing market can help deliver a significant increase in the total number of new homes being built,” he added.

Berry continued: "Efforts by the Government to bring forward new sites for development quickly by releasing public-sector land and investing in infrastructure are welcome, but too often these measures don't benefit smaller house builders. The funding to unlock stalled sites needs to be readily available for use on smaller scale developments, so that the thousands of small and medium-sized firms can boost the industry's production capacity."

Berry concluded: "The Chancellor's Business Bank announcement is welcome, but it won’t be fully operational until 2014. Our latest research shows that lending to businesses needs to improve now. More than 40 per cent of construction SMEs have found it more expensive to access credit in the past two years, which has led to lost growth opportunities and cuts in employment and training. Construction businesses are also experiencing smaller workloads because their clients can't access finance. The Government must work hard to ensure the Business Bank gets finance flowing to firms of all sizes as soon as possible."

AUTUMN STATEMENT: MORE TOXIC MEDICINE?

The Tory-Lib Dem Government’s economic policies are not working:

They’re failing on jobs, growth and the deficit

Prices are rising faster than wages, our economy has flatlined for two years and long term unemployment is soaring. This is causing long-term damage to the economy. And because the benefits bill is up and tax revenues are down as a result of this economic failure, borrowing is rising so far this year – meaning the government is failing on the one test they set themselves. Raising taxes and cutting spending too far and too fast has backfired.

They don’t have a long-term plan for our economy

Banking reforms are being watered down, they’ve failed to deliver on infrastructure investment to strengthen our economy for the future and business is rapidly losing confidence in the government’s ability to make long-term decisions.

And they’re standing up for the wrong people

The price of this government’s economic failure is being paid for by people on middle and low incomes who are being asked to pay more, while millionaires get a tax cut – worth an average of £107,000 for 8,000 people earning over £1 million.

We need a One Nation approach to the economy: an economy that grows, where everybody has a stake and where the rewards are fairly shared.

So these are the tests for today’s autumn statement:

We need a plan to create jobs and growth, which are vital to get the deficit down and catch up all the lost ground of the last two years. Labour's five point plan includes using the funds from the 4G auction to build 100,000 affordable homes, bringing forward infrastructure investment, a temporary VAT cut and a bank bonus tax to fund a jobs guarantee for young people.

We need long-term reforms to strengthen our economy and ensure that other countries do not continue to race ahead of us. This should include a British Investment Bank properly backed by the Treasury to boost lending to small and medium sized businesses, a long term plan to rebuild our infrastructure and radical reforms to separate retail and investment banking.

We need fair action to help people on low and middle incomes with the rising cost of living. That means cancelling the fuel duty rise in January, at least until next April. And it means rethinking the plan to give a tax cut to millionaires on the same day that taxes go up for millions of pensioners.

In the Autumn Statement we need to see a change of course from George Osborne, not more of the same.

If he fails to do so then it will be even clearer that only One Nation Labour can deliver the change Britain needs to make our economy fairer and stronger, get the deficit down and ensure people are better off.

FIREFIGHTERS WARN – EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO FLOODING THREATENED BY CUTBACKS

The Fire Brigades Union has warned that relentless cuts to frontline 999 services threaten to hamper firefighters’ ability to respond to floods and other emergencies.

I share their concerns because the savage spending cuts imposed on fire and rescue services by central government is leading to fewer fire stations, fewer fire engines and fewer firefighters. The cuts are leaving local emergency crews ill-equipped to deal with floods, fires and other emergencies. The national media reported earlier this week that firefighters were so stretched in some areas that motorist stranded by rising floodwaters could not be rescued.

And yet the minster responsible for the fire and rescue seems oblivious to the problem. In fact when I challenged him about the impact of the cuts he dismissed my strictures claiming there had only been a 0.5% reduction in funding for fire and rescue services.

The FBU’s general secretary, Matt Wrack, has written to David Cameron, outlining the union’s concerns and calling for urgent action. I sincerely hope he is successful because the government is planning even bigger cuts in the next two years. This has led some fire chiefs to say they will not be able to fulfill their statutory responsibilities, let alone do anything else.

Given that water rescue is not a statutory duty, I shudder to think what will happen if there is more severe flooding next year.

LABOUR CALLS ON CAMERON AND OSBORNE TO STOP THE NEW YEAR FUEL DUTY RISE

Earlier this week Labour MPs called on George Osborne to cancel the Government’s New Year 3p per litre petrol tax rise that will hit local people hard when it comes into force on 1 January.

At a time when the cost of living is rising, our recovery is fragile and this out of touch Government is giving 8,000 millionaires an average tax cut of over £107,000, it cannot be right to hit middle and low income families and small businesses with another tax rise.

The price of petrol has gone up 13p since the Tories came to power. People in Derby are really feeling the squeeze from the Government’s VAT rise – which has added 3p to the price of a litre of petrol – and deep cuts to things like tax credits.

So delaying January's fuel duty rise, at least until April, would provide some much-needed financial relief.

It’s disappointing that Tory and Lib Dem MPs voted in the House of Commons against our plan to stop the New Year fuel duty hike. But I will keep urging the Government to change their minds and not hit local families and businesses so hard at this very difficult time for our economy.

GOVERNMENT DITHERING ON LOW CARBON GROWTH MEANS INVESTORS ARE GOING ELSEWHERE

The Tory-led Government is throwing away the massive jobs and growth opportunities presented by the new low carbon energy and technology, not to mention betraying their promises on the environment.  That’s why this week Ed Miliband has called on David Cameron to make a commitment to the 2030 de-carbonisation target so investors all over the world know we are open for low carbon business.

The Confederation of British Industry believes low carbon business could halve our trade deficit by 2014-15. And yet, despite David Cameron’s promises that this Government would be the greenest government ever we have a government that has delayed crucial decisions on the Green Investment Bank and de-carbonisation targets.

This short sightedness is damaging the green economy. The short-sightedness of the Government means billions of pounds in investment is going elsewhere or being put on hold. Since this Government came to power, investment in renewable energy hasn’t gone up, it hasn’t even stagnated - it has halved.

Thanks to this Government, the investors who want to invest in our low carbon sector are shutting their wallets or going elsewhere.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FAILS TO MATERIALISE

The continuing failure of BIS to deliver and its failure to be the “Department for Growth”, which Business Secretary Vince Cable promised is a national scandal.

Despite giving 16 speeches on the need for an industrial strategy, Vince Cable has not delivered one. BIS has failed to adopt the strategic approach that the UK needs to give businesses certainty. Instead of leadership, all we have seen since this rotten Tory-Lib Dem Government came to power is chaos, confusion and uncertainty.

As Vince Cable has said, the government lacks a “compelling vision” of how Britain can succeed in the future, and where new jobs are going to come from. Just as the Government has choked off demand by making the wrong decisions on the economy in the short-term, they have also failed to offer a credible plan of how Britain will pay its way in the world in the future.

The Government’s rag bag of measures are small in scale and limited in impact - they fail to meet the size of the challenges - all the while they are pursuing an economy based on people facing low wages and insecurity.

Even Lord Heseltine said in his recent report that the message he keeps hearing is that the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation. The fact that a former Conservative Cabinet Minister is still calling on the Government to come up with a growth strategy halfway through the lifetime of this Parliament is a damning indictment of the Government’s failure.

Business leaders have been unimpressed with the Government’s business policy and lack of industrial strategy. John Cridland, the Director General of the CBI, said “Where’s the beef?” in response to David Cameron’s speech to the CBI conference last Monday.

In the CBI’s, ‘Playing our strongest hand: maximising the UK’s industrial opportunites’, report this month says “the current hands-off approach to growth is failing to provide the confidence necessary for businesses to compete for the biggest opportunities out there. Rebalancing the UK economy must consist of boosting our productive potential, which means reviving business investment and trade as key drivers of growth. The debate is no longer over whether the UK needs an industrial strategy, but about what form it should take.”

According to the Chartered Management Institute almost two thirds of managers (63%) have little or no confidence in the Government’s current economic policy. Furthermore, 19% of managers give the Government a vote of no confidence. Business optimism is lower than it was six months ago, dropping from a net +11 to -2 since April.

This is clear evidence that the country is crying out for Labour’s One Nation Industrial Strategy. One Nation politics has to have at its very heart an economy in which everybody has a stake and in which wealth and prosperity is fairly shared.

An economy which encourages huge levels of inequality, or which relies on one sector or a small number of regions above over all others, resulting in huge distortions and vulnerabilities, cannot be an effective or fair way of doing things.

Growth must become more balanced across regions and sectors, so that more in our country benefit from growth and our economy is more resilient in the face of global shocks.

WE NEED AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY INTO THE DYSFUNCTIONAL DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT

I WAS surely not the only Derbeian who was optimistic that Patrick McLoughlin’s appointment as Transport Secretary might offer a glimmer of hope to Bombardier.

As a fellow Derbyshire MP, I presumed that Mr McLoughlin would better understand how damaging the Government’s appalling decision not to award the £1.4bn Thameslink contract to the Derby trainmaker was.

That is why Norman Baker’s response to my speech in today’s debate on the Thameslink and Crossrail contracts, that he still expects the contract with German firm Siemens to be signed early next year, was so desperately disappointing.

I made the point that serious doubts remain over the validity of the decision that was originally made 18 months ago. And, crucially, there is now an even greater justification for Mr McLoughlin to revisit the decision - if he really wants to. But it seems my words continue to fall on deaf ears.

At the outset of the procurement process, it was envisaged that Thameslink would operate as an independent franchise. But the goalposts have moved since then. It is now anticipated that a “super-franchise” will be created, also involving some of the Southern and South Eastern services.

This is a fundamental shift. Even Mr McLoughlin’s predecessor, Justine Greening, accepted that termination of the Thameslink contract could take place if there were significant changes to “external factors”. I have written to Mr McLoughlin to highlight this point and await a reply.

He told a Transport Select Committee summoned to investigate that other farce within his department - the suspended West Coast procurement process - that he accepted the public had a right to expect better. So why won’t he deliver it?

My great fear is that the Government is continuing with this process now for all the wrong reasons. The weight of evidence against its original decision is overwhelming. Industry experts and economists alike concur that there was no logic to it. And the West Coast issue has merely served to confirm that the DfE’s procurement processes are far from polished.

I worry that it is sheer stubbornness which now prevents the Government from accepting the public was right all along. But even if ministers in Westminster are prepared to threaten Derby’s wellbeing to save their blushes, local MPs should not be.

I certainly will not let this issue lie until the ink on the contract is dry and all hope is lost. I just wish Mr McLoughlin, who owes his position not to David Cameron and his Cabinet colleagues but to the people of Derbyshire who elected him, shared that loyalty.

In the meantime I used today’s debate to call for an independent enquiry to look at the way the dysfunctional Department for Transport procures trains. Unless the DfT starts acting in the national interest, we could witnessing the end of the British train making industry.

DEATH PENALTY CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED

SOMETIMES in politics you are given the opportunity to work on a cause for which you feel a true personal passion and commitment.

That is precisely the situation I have found myself in after being appointed secretary to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

It is a group unlike many others based in Westminster. To start with, its ultimate aim is something that was achieved in the UK many decades ago - the last execution on these shores took place in 1964.

In addition, it is a group where political differences truly can be put aside. In a period when the two main political parties are poles apart on social values and economic policies, such collaboration is something worth celebrating.

My own view is that the death penalty can never be right. And I don’t propose to offer a host of reasons to justify this view.

We are not talking about taxation levels, welfare support, unemployment or housing policy. We’re talking about whether it is acceptable for a society to kill human beings as a form of punishment.

I don’t see how that can ever be tolerated.

That is why I find it so incredible that some developed nations, including 34 states in the USA, continue to use the death penalty.

So what can a cross-party group do about it? What influence does a group of MPs in the UK have on the policies of overseas states?

Well to start with there are the changes we can make to our own legislation.

The shocking truth is that there are UK nationals all over the world who have spent years on death row awaiting the most awful fate.

Some of the more high profile cases make the news and on those occasions we hear about state interventions.

Personally, I would like to see the state intervening as a matter of course where a UK national faces the death penalty. I would be thrilled if the all-party group could help secure that legislative change.

But there is also the work we can do in assisting the many charities and organisations set-up to campaign against capital punishment and support those facing it.

One such organisation is Reprieve. Thanks to work by this charity, more than 300 people once consigned to the death penalty no longer face that fate.

Reprieve identifies instances where there is evidence of flawed prosecution cases against people on Death Row and leads the legal fight to help them.

I have already met with the organisation and will continue to work with its representatives to see how else the all-party group can offer its support.

But aside from all of that, our other main role is to simply raise awareness.

So established is it in the UK psyche that the death penalty is immoral, it is easy to forget that capital punishment still hangs over other societies like the darkest of clouds.

I am not naive enough to believe for a moment that the death penalty will be globally condemned in my lifetime.

But I am privileged to be in a position to help inch the world towards a more civilised and compassionate future.

LABOUR’S INNOVATION IN DERBY LEADS THE WAY

WE have heard much talk over the last two-and-a-half years of the unprecedented level of cuts in funding for public services.

For anyone who believes in public services, as I passionately do, that has been hard to take.

But an unprecedented situation forces a choice: shall I do something innovative to put myself in a better situation, or do I sit back and see how this unfolds?

That has been a choice facing local authorities up and down the country.

Faced with funding settlements from the Government far lower than anybody could have anticipated, the chain reaction is that passing on the cuts means that services fall and support is reduced.

So what are councils to do? Do they simply shrug their shoulders and accept that is their lot, or do they try to do something different to support their residents?

Since the local elections in May, we’ve seen much less of the former and much more of the latter in Derby.

It is a depressing inevitability in Derby as much as anywhere else that the cuts must be passed on and, increasingly, the public understand that.

But I’ve been thrilled to see that Labour-led Derby City Council is countering that with some innovative steps that will help to build the city’s economy from the bottom up.

To begin with, there is the plan to introduce supported council mortgages to help first time buyers onto the property ladder. As well as helping the individuals and couples who will benefit from the scheme, this will crucially get Derby’s housing market moving again.

In fact, this very scheme was dismissed when Labour was in opposition three years ago when I included it as part of Labour’s alternative budget strategy for the city. It is par for the course that the current council leadership has the courage of their convictions that their Lib Dem and Tory predecessors clearly lacked then and still lack now.

Then there is the recent announcement that the council is to become a Living Wage employer, guaranteeing its lowest paid workers a salary in line with the cost of living.

Again, this decision is about helping far more than the people who directly benefit. It is about boosting the city’s economy by creating the disposable income that will be reinvested in local businesses.

In making these choices, the council is proving that when Labour says “there is another way”, it actually means it.

It is this kind of investment which we have been talking about for months. It grows the economy by giving it the opportunity to flourish, as opposed to strangling it by making it insular and stagnant through cut after cut after cut.

Not just that, but it shows the central role that public services play in that recovery. That is why public services are so crucial. It is not just about the front-facing role they play, but also about how public bodies can be the catalysts to spark recovery.

The reality is that Labour needed to win back the trust of the British people - the 2010 General Election results showed that.

But I believe the tide of public opinion is turning. I believe more and more people are recognising that any decent society relies on solid public services to glue it together.

And it is by taking these sorts of steps that Labour can prove that its approach is the right way.

REGIONAL PAY IN NHS WOULD EXACERBATE NORTH-SOUTH DIVIDE

PROPOSALS by the Tory-Lib Dem Government to abandon a national pay structure in the NHS would be disastrous for terms and conditions of health service employees.

As fears grow that regional pay structures will be brought in to replace the existing arrangements, there is a danger of the North-South divide being exacerbated. The impact of Governments cuts since the last General Election will grow further if the national deal is abandoned.

A group of NHS trusts in the South West have already committed to forming a regional deal, while others around the country are now thought to be considering the move.

But the national pay structure has underpinned and stabilised the NHS since it was introduced. It has removed the inequity that previously existed where some nurses earned as little as £12,000 per year.

To remove it would be a retrograde step. In all parts of the country it would threaten the terms and conditions of employees, particularly in the North and Midlands where it would be a huge concern.

We’ve seen how Government cuts have had a disproportionate impact in the North and Midlands in terms of local authority funding, unemployment, homelessness and poverty. There’s every reason to expect this trend to be continued if national pay structures are replaced.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION SCHEME SLASHED

Earlier this evening, Labour voted to stop the Tory-Lib Dem Government’s cuts to compensation for over 90% of seriously injured victims of violent crime and for the dependants of murder victims.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme currently supports over 30,000 injured victims each year with relatively small payments. These payments help to make up for lost wages whilst victims of crime are unable to work due to their injuries.

The Government’s proposed cuts would mean that compensation would not be available to victims who sustain injuries such as facial disfigurement, permanent speech impediment or multiple fractured ribs. The victims of dog attacks would no longer receive any compensation, no matter how serious their injuries.

Even those most seriously injured would have their payments slashed, as compensation for loss of earnings will be limited to the rate of Statutory Sick Pay – just £85 a week. And any victim who has had a period out of work in the previous three years (around a third of the UK workforce) will not receive any compensation for loss of earnings.

These same cuts and conditions will apply to the dependants of murder victims, drastically reducing their compensation and financial security following the death of a loved one.

The Government have sought to make these huge cuts to compensation for victims of crime by the back door, with no discussion by the full House of Commons. Labour MPs called this debate as a final opportunity for MPs to demonstrate to Government Ministers the fundamental flaws in their program of cuts to Criminal Injuries Compensation.

It was also a chance for MPs to stand up for the victims of crime and demonstrate to the Government that there must be a better way to make cuts than to 90% of seriously injured victims of violent crime and to the dependants of murder victims – who have no other means of redress.

I will continue to put the interests of victims first, unlike the Tory and Lib Dem MPs who voted in favour of these cruel and unnecessary cuts.

FIRST STEP IN LABOUR’S FIVE-POINT PLAN WOULD CREATE 10,000 EAST MIDLANDS JOBS

ALMOST ten thousand construction jobs could be created in the East Midlands if the Government agrees to Labour plans to use a £3-4bn windfall to kickstart house building.

The National Housing Federation estimates that another 40,000 jobs would be created in the supply chain and around 6,500 new homes would be built in the region under the plans.

Labour is calling on the Tory-led Government to use the cash - expected to be generated from the forthcoming auction of the 4G mobile phone spectrum - to lift Britain out of its housing crisis.

Our economy is struggling and unemployment is at unnecessarily high levels. In one fell swoop the Government could take huge strides towards rectifying both of these problems by taking this step.

The funds raised from the 4G auction should be used to put something back into the economy. Much needed affordable homes would be created, first-time buyers would find it easier to get on the property ladder and thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships would be created.

The proposal is part of Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth – which includes a temporary VAT cut and bringing forward infrastructure investment.

It is in addition to the 25,000 homes for social rent Labour has already said should be funded by part of the funds raised from a tax on bank bonuses.

PESSIMISM GRIPS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The latest Construction Trade Survey published on Monday this week showed that construction activity fell sharply in Q3, despite a return to growth for the UK economy as a whole. Of greater concern, however, is the forward looking indicators of orders and enquiries, were also negative, reinforcing concerns that the sector is unlikely to experience growth until at least 2014.

This is the first time there has been a decline in all construction sectors. Whilst the public sector construction activity has been falling for some time as a result of the government’s cuts, private sector activity is also now falling sharply. On top of this bad news, infrastructure work also declined in Q3. Given all the government’s rhetoric about stimulating infrastructure activity, these figures provide further evidence of the Tory-Lib Dem Government’s utter incompetence.

Speaking about the survey, Stephen Ratcliffe, Director of the UK Construction Group, said: “These figures show how difficult trading conditions continue to be. With declining public sector spend and a lack of confidence amongst private investors, action is urgently needed to kick-start the construction sector.”

Key survey findings include:

• Public new housing and public non-housing were the worst hit sectors for building contractors, with a balance of 38% and 34% respectively, reporting falls in output

• 29% and 27% of building contractors reported that, on balance, output fell in the private industrial and private commercial sectors respectively

• 20% of heavy side product manufacturers and 41% of light side manufacturers reported that, on balance, sales fell in Q3

• 26% of contractors reported that, on balance, orders fell in the third quarter

• 17% of civil engineers reported a fall in workload, on balance, during Q3

• 50% of large and medium sized building contractors, on balance, suggested that tender prices reduced in 2012 Q3

• 32% of building contractors, on balance, reported rises in costs, marginally higher than the 30% in Q2

• The proportion of contractors, on balance, reporting falls in profit margins remained unchanged at 49%

LIVING WAGE WEEK

In a speech today at Islington Town Hall to mark the start of Living Wage Week, Ed Miliband said:

I want to thank everyone gathered here, councillors, representatives of Citizens UK, Labour Party supporters, businesses, trade unions and people who are just passionate about the living wage.

As we start Living Wage Week, there are almost five million people in Britain who aren’t earning the living wage.

People who got up early this morning, spent hours getting to work - who are putting in all the effort they can - but who often don’t get paid enough to look after their families, to heat their homes, feed their kids, care for their elderly relatives and plan for the future.

I heard from some of them in Manchester on Friday.

Five million people in Britain who are doing the right thing and doing their bit.

People helping to build the prosperity on which our country depends.

But people who aren’t sharing fairly in the rewards.

That’s not how it should be in Britain today.

That’s not how we will succeed as a country in the years ahead.

We must turn that around.

We must rebuild our country as One Nation.

And that’s why I am delighted to join with you in reaffirming my commitment to the campaign for the living wage.

The living wage isn’t an idea that came from politicians.

Or from academics in think tanks.

It came from working people themselves.

People who recognised that they were giving their all for organisations

that could afford to pay just a little bit more to give dignity to them.

But who weren’t doing so.

People who recognised that their firms might be more likely to succeed if they did.

And this campaign was the result.

A campaign that is doing so much to change attitudes to our economy.

Bringing together politicians, with businesses, trade unions, councils, and voluntary groups to insist that the living wage is an idea whose time has come.

And recent evidence tells us more clearly than ever how necessary the living wage is for our country.

The Resolution Foundation report published last week, showed the way in which our economy is not working for working people.

But just for a few at the top.

A few taking ever-more of a share of the national cake.

While other people struggle more and more to make ends meet.

And the prospect into the future of stagnating living standards for millions of people.

Therefore one of the big questions for our country is who will answer this living standards crisis?

Who will just say it is business as usual and who will be bold enough to change things?

The Labour Party I lead is determined to bring about change.

Just as in the 1990s, the minimum wage was a signature achievement of the last Labour government.

So in the coming years, the living wage will be central to our work.

I want to tell you today why I became so passionate about the living wage.

Just before the General Election, Citizens UK came to see me with a cleaner from the Treasury who wasn’t being paid the living wage.

I thought then that if our common life was to mean anything, it should mean that this hard-working woman, who cleaned the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be paid at least the living wage.

So our last manifesto committed, as a small but important step, to pay the living wage in Whitehall departments.

And it was this experience that inspired me to put the living wage at the centre of my Labour leadership campaign.

Then after I became leader, about a year ago, Citizens UK came to see and said only a couple of councils, both Labour, were recognised as living wage employers.

And we needed to move beyond that.

I am proud to say that since then, Islington and Lewisham have been joined by Labour councils in Birmingham, Hounslow, Lambeth, Camden, Oxford, Preston, Southwark and Hackney, all living wage employers.

And soon by other Labour councils in Ealing, Enfield, Brent, Cardiff and Norwich.

With Glasgow, Newcastle, York and Leeds starting along that path as well.

That’s 19 Labour councils across the country moving to pay their employees and their directly contracted staff at least the living wage.

I congratulate all the councils here on what they are doing.

This is an important step for workers across the country.

But we know it is not enough because the vast majority of those being paid less than the living wage are in the private sector.

Some people will say that in a harshly competitive world, nothing can be done.

I don’t agree with that.

And nor do many of our leading British businesses.

At least one hundred have now joined the living wage campaign led by Citizens UK.

Of course, for some firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, it is not affordable in current circumstances to pay the living wage.

That’s why the minimum wage of £6.19, is an important national legal standard for wages.

But that should not the summit of our ambitions.

Either for our workforce, our employers or our country.

Or the limit of our responsibilities.

There are sectors of our economy, where some firms are choosing to pay the living wage and others are choosing not to.

And I believe we can learn from the best British businesses that are paying the living wage.

Businesses which have introduced it tell us that it saves them money.

In reduced turnover of staff.

And lower sickness absence.

Let’s congratulate Barclays that has been paying the London living wage since 2007 and rolled it out nationally this year.

In cleaning, they keep 92% of their workers against 35% across the industry.

So it makes business sense.

I urge businesses to examine whether they can afford to pay the living wage, and if they can to move to do so.

And as the Labour Party continues with its policy review, we need to see what the next Labour government can do to help as well.

It’s not about making spending commitments.

It’s about learning from our experience in local government.

It’s about listening to the best businesses in the country.

So these are some of the proposals we are looking at:

First, we should recognize that if firms pay the living wage, it has a saving for government.

In my leadership campaign, I worked with the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Their evidence showed that for every £1 spent in the private sector on getting workers up to the living wage, around 50 pence of that would come back to government in savings on tax credits and benefits and in higher tax revenue.

We are looking at whether it is possible to encourage more firms to pay the living wage by sharing some of those savings that come back to government.

There are lots of ways it could be done.

But it should be locally led.

Focused on what you might call Living Wage Zones.

For example, local councils could come together with groups of firms that want to move from the minimum wage to the living wage.

And central government could offer up some of the savings from the taxpayer to be used as a financial incentive to make it happen.

That incentive could take many forms.

But it is a One Nation solution with local people, councils and business coming together.

Secondly, we should seek to learn from the local government experience with procurement to see whether central government can use its power to insist that large firms that get major government contracts commit to being living wage employers.

We know how some councils have done this for contracted out services.

Here in Islington, the company that delivered ground maintenance moved to pay the living wage, without extra cost to the local taxpayer or any job losses.

We will look at whether we can apply this lesson to central government procurement.

Thirdly, we will examine the case for greater transparency: large firms publishing the number of employees paid less than the living wage, as proposed by the Resolution Foundation.

This is not because we think every employer can pay the living wage but it will encourage, sector by sector, all to aspire to the ambitions of the best.

So these are some of the ideas we are examining.

I promise today that at the next election, we will present a manifesto that explains how we can help to make the living wage a part of our strategy to make Britain’s economy work for working people again.

Two and half years ago, David Cameron came into office promising to bring change to Britain.

Promising to care for the low paid.

He said there would be at least a £250 pay increase for the 1.7 million lowest paid workers in their first two years.

But it is a promise he has failed to keep.

And it’s not an accident.

It’s because the change we need goes far deeper than David Cameron and his Conservative Party is capable ever of admitting.

It is good that Boris Johnson is supporting the London living wage today, building on the work of Ken Livingstone.

But he is the only Conservative local authority leader to run an authority paying the living wage.

It is striking that while 19 Labour councils are already living wage employers, not a single Conservative council is yet accredited.

The problem is this Government is stuck in the old mindset: saying nothing can be done and making it worse with tax cuts for millionaires and tax rises for everyone else.

It is only a Labour government that will address the living standards crisis faced by so many.

We need to build an economy where everyone has a stake.

Not where millions of people feel they never have a chance for a decent life however hard they work.

An economy where prosperity is fairly shared.

Not where the rewards for success are passed to some who play their part and not to others.

And an economy where we all come together as a country to overcome the challenges we face.

We need an economy that would help us to rebuild Britain as One Nation.

Not where we live apart, in two nations.

Building that economy won’t be easy.

It will require us all to play our part.

Shareholders and workers.

Public sector and private sector.

Business, trade unions and government.

The campaign for a living wage is a central part of it.

That is why I am so pleased to be here today.

POSTPONED BADGER CULL IS AN OMNIVORE SHAMBLES

The statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, confirming the postponement of the proposed badger cull was an example of another shambolic policy failure. It contained a shameful series of evasions and errors in seeking to justify the killing of badgers and the impractical methods the that Tory-Lib Dem Coalition proposes to use.

What I found particularly worrying was that he was arrogant and out of touch with reality. He tempestuously thumped the despatch box in response to my question about earmarking £250,000 for post mortems on badgers and dismissed it as a “ludicrous question”.  He quoted Greek mythological figures at other Labour MPs who were challenging his approach to this issue. And in response to my Labour colleague, Simon Danczuk, who asked how much public money had been spent so far on the misguided cull, Paterson suggested that unless the cull went ahead it would “look like a round of drinks”!

It was significant that of the large number of Tory and Lib Dem MPs who responded to Paterson’s statement, only one Tory and two Lib Dems expressed opposition to the cull, the rest wanted a clear commitment to press ahead with the cull next year. By contrast, the last Labour government established six trials where a badger ‘Bacille Calmette Guérin’ (BCG) vaccine was used test its effectiveness in tackling TB. But when the Tory-Lib Dem Government came to power they cancelled the trials.

Labour MPs have been joined by the Badger Trust in calling for an open and transparent public review of all the issues surrounding the cull. This includes the costs, public safety, practicability, science, animal welfare and the emergence of alternatives to culling. Owen Paterson was also pressed in the House of Commons today on whether he had any contact with EU ministers about vaccinating cattle and what steps he was going to take to improve biosecurity on farms.

Owen Paterson’s claims that he is basing his stance on “scientific opinion”, but that is nonsense. The truth is informed scientific opinion wants a national bTB eradication strategy, which would make clear the miniscule contribution and considerable dangers to be expected from culling.

Owen Paterson should use this pause to reflect on the fact that:

• There is no evidence that the badger population has increased since the last estimate in 1997.

• His so-called effective culling method has never been tried and requires pilot culls to test it.

• Britain enjoyed 20 years with about 1,000 cattle slaughtered annually. The number only rose when testing was disrupted by BSE and foot and mouth, but for 16 years the industry stood out against pre-movement testing.

• Ten times as many cattle are killed for diseases other than bovine TB. Compensation is paid for the TB-infected cattle, but not for the others.

• In saying no other country had tackled bTB without addressing wildlife Mr Paterson seems to have forgotten that the United Kingdom did so after World War II. The cattle toll was reduced from 47,476 to a low point of 628 in 1979, without killing badgers.

• Bovine TB is not currently spreading. In fact the number of cattle lost – and compensated for – has been falling from 2008 up to last year.

• The disease is not being “left unchecked”. A new range of long-awaited and overdue farm-based measures have finally been announced for next year.

• Marksmen shooting badgers at night will have to kill at least seven out of ten – but the government has no idea how many badgers there are in the first place.

Regrettably, farmers and landowners have been sadly deluded into believing in - and paying for - the proposed unholy mess based on a 40-year-old prejudice that disregards scientific evidence.

WHY DID HUGO CHAVEZ WIN THE VENEZUELAN ELECTION

Hugo Chavez was re-elected as President of Venezuela with 55% of the vote to 44%

He won over 8.1m votes, which is a record number of votes received by any candidate in Venezuelan history.

Hugo Chavez won in 22 of Venezuela’s 24 states including in Miranda, the state governed by his main election rival Henrique Carpriles Radonski.

The election saw the highest turnout in Venezuelan history with 81 per cent voting.

The 11% margin of victory is a landslide. For example, since the Second World War only 2 UK General Elections have produced a wider winning margin and only 4 US presidential elections have done so.

It appears that support is growing faster for Hugo Chavez than for the right-wing opposition coalition. Since the last election in 2010, Hugo Chavez’s coalition of supporters has added 2.3m votes whilst right-wing coalition added 1.2m votes.

A FREE AND FAIR ELECTION
This was the fifteenth election since Hugo Chavez first came to office in 1999. There have been more sets of elections since then than in the proceeding 40 years of Venezuelan democracy.

During the election campaign former United States President Jimmy Carter said “the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world". He added that Hugo Chavez has always won “fairly and squarely”. Carter won a Nobel prize for his work with the election-monitoring Carter Centre.

The head of the observer mission of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), Carlos Alvarez, stated that “the electoral system is reliable and the process was excellent”.

The Venezuelan right-wing opposition coalition has recognised the election results

CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS TO CHAVEZ'S RE-ELECTION
The elections took place against the backdrop of strong economic growth with Venezuela’s economy growing at 6% in the first half of 2012. It left recession two years ago.

New social policies which address the ongoing needs of Venezuela’s poor majority have also continued. For example in the past year alone 250,000 new social houses have been built and state pensions made available for all. These policies are deeply popular, explaining why pollsters gave Chavez a 60% approval rating in the run up to the election and also the election result.


You can see my interview on Venezuelan TV news here: http://multimedia.vtv.gob.ve/es/#!/videos/noticia/nacionales/britanicos-apoyan-modelo-economico-venezolano

PANTOMIME SEASON COMES EARLY FOR THE TORIES

AS theatres across the nation prepare for pantomime season, it seems the biggest farce of all was at Westminster last week as the Tory-led Government fumbled from one embarrassment to another.

Even I couldn’t have anticipated that my question to David Cameron over energy bills would have prompted such a catalogue of mishaps from a Government that is clearly running out of ideas.

It was right and proper that I posed the challenge at Prime Minister’s Question Time as it was the anniversary of Mr Cameron’s Energy Summit. Given his abject failure in the intervening 12 months to do anything positive I thought it was timely to remind him of his pledge to reduce energy bills.

But even I didn’t expect the to-ing on fro-ing that followed.

First Mr Cameron “revealed” an apparent Tory policy to force energy companies to offer the lowest tariff to all their customers. The only problem was Mr Cameron hadn’t bothered to talk to fellow ministers or civil servants about his plan to drop this bombshell.

“Oh no he didn’t!” was the initial cry from Whitehall, as panic ensued while ministers desperately tried to make sense of the Prime Minister’s announcement.

“Oh well he might have done!” was the message from Energy Minister John Hayes during a shocking display of back-pedalling in the House of Commons the next morning.

“Oh yes I did!” then confirmed Mr Cameron that evening, as journalists caught him before a meeting in Brussels and, once again, the Prime Minister found himself sweating on the spot.

Even now I’m not 100 per cent convinced I fully understand what the outcome is, and what we can expect to see in the Energy Bill when it comes before Parliament.

And it is a very serious issue. Spiralling energy costs are one of the biggest challenges facing families, with the cost of living rising but income at best stagnating and at worst reducing.

That is why it is important that any legislation affecting it is fully thought out. That Mr Cameron and his cabinet colleagues lost grip on this topic to such an embarrassing extent proves, once again, how totally out of touch they are with the public.

Or perhaps it is a sign of Mr Cameron’s arrogance that he doesn’t even feel he needs to talk to his ministers any more.

Let’s face it: he stopped bothering to ask what his Lib Dem partners in crime thought months ago. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before he treated his own party colleagues with the same degree of contempt.

And it is becoming increasingly obvious just how arrogant David Cameron really is.

He exudes arrogance every time he refuses to budge on his failing economic policy that has blighted his Government from the day he took office.  Despite an increasing number of independent economic and political commentators agreeing he is causing irreparable damage, by cutting too far and too fast, he carries on regardless.

And he certainly displayed arrogance in his total failure to take action against his shamed Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell.

Mr Mitchell has been less than honourable in his mishandling of the storm he caused by belittling a police officer last month. Stepping down from his position is the first honourable thing he has done since then, albeit several weeks later than he should have done.

But it is notable that even though the whole world, including Mr Mitchell, could see his position was untenable, the one person who refused to admit he may have made a mistake was the Prime Minister.

And that’s the really worrying thing.

If David Cameron cannot bear to admit his mistakes over smaller matters, what hope is there that he will fare any better when it comes to the really big issues?

HUGO CHAVEZ VICTORY IN VENEZUELA CELEBRATED IN LONDON TONIGHT

I enjoyed a lovely evening at the Venezuelan Embassy in London tonight celebrating Hugo Chavez’s presidential victory. In spite external interference in the democratic affairs of a sovereign country, Chavez secured an overwhelming majority in the recent election.

Regrettably I had to leave early as I had booked a ticket for the 8.55pm train back to Derby. But it was great to be there to experience the joy and solidarity with people who, like me, are delighted that progressive policies were overwhelmingly endorsed by the Venezuelan people.

I think Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne could learn a lesson or two from this Latin American economic miracle where the wealth the country generates is invested in the economy and shared with its people.

Venezuela’s economy is growing at a staggering six percent a year, something we can only dream of with the counterproductive austerity programme being pursued by our rotten Tory-Lib Dem government.

Venezuela’s progressive policies have seen extreme poverty slashed by 70 percent, and whilst there is of course more do, it is testament to Venezuela’s determination to build a better society. And talking of building, in the past year alone 250,000 new social houses have been built. Compared to the catastrophic collapse in house building in Britain, Venezuela’s record is impressive.

Furthermore, Venezuela’s state pensions have been made available for all and the minimum wage has been increased by 30 percent. It is little surprise that these policies are deeply popular and explains why Hugo Chavez secured such a strong mandate on a turnout of over 80 percent.

Before the election Brazil’s former President Lula backed President Chavez saying...“Your victory will be ours”. He said: “With Chavez's leadership, the Venezuelan people have made extraordinary gains. The popular classes have never ever been treated with such respect, love and dignity. Those conquests must be preserved and strengthened. Your victory will be ours... thanks comrade for everything you have done for Latin America”.

It was a ringing endorsement that was evidently shared in spades by a large majority of the Venezuelan people.