THE GROWING CRISIS IN A&E HAS DAVID CAMERON’S FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER IT

THE growing crisis in A&E has David Cameron’s fingerprints all over it and goes to show that you can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.

New figures out this week show that ambulance services are struggling to cope before winter has even begun.

Thousands of people are being held in  the backs of ambulances outside A&E because hospitals are full.  David Cameron has wasted £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, whilst at the same time the NHS has lost over 6,500 nurses since the last election.

This week Labour held a summit with A&E and ambulance staff to discuss pressures on the front line and to identify measures that may help ease the pressure.

With ambulances stuck in queues, large parts of the country are being left without adequate cover.

David Cameron can’t go on with this dangerous complacency and he must act now if all 999 calls are to receive the right response this winter. All this just proves that you can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.

GOVT'S COLD HOMES SCANDAL

YESTERDAY, the Government rejected my amendments to the Energy Bill when I called for clear and unambiguous targets to eradicate fuel poverty.  

Today I witnessed the Chancellor compounding the living standards crisis and ignoring a golden opportunity to reverse decades of underinvestment in Britain’s ageing housing infrastructure.  He could have made up for the failings of the Energy Secretary by using today's occasion to reduce the rate of VAT on domestic renovation and repair and help to get Britain's million plus unemployed young people back to work.  

The inaction of the Energy Secretary and the Chancellor has left millions of households powerless in the face of rising fuel bills.  These millionaire ministers have failed to stand up for ordinary people and have capitulated to the Big 6 Energy Companies.  

They have proved themselves so out of touch with the lives of the British public that, rather than doing something about the rising numbers of people in fuel poverty struggling to pay their fuel bills, they've simply changed the definition of what constitutes fuel poverty!  

Even though there was a 29% increase in the number of excess winter deaths last winter, ministers smugly claim they've secured a good deal for people by knocking £50 off the increase in energy bills. But people's fuel bills are still going up by at least £70, placing even more people in the invidious position of choosing between putting food on the table or adequately heating their homes.

Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders voiced his concern this afternoon when he said: “In his Autumn Statement George Osborne says he is backing British business and British families, and correctly named housing as the general public’s top infrastructure priority. 

"However, the Government continues to focus on big-ticket projects such as road and rail, which will be years in the planning and are unlikely even to begin within the term of this Parliament. 

"The Chancellor has missed an opportunity to reduce VAT on housing renovation and repair.  This would deliver an instant economic fillip to millions of households that are struggling with the ever-increasing cost of living and give Britain’s builders the boost they need to capitalise on the recovery."

Berry added: “Householders need more help to combat the rising cost of heating their homes, and lowering the rate of VAT charged on all housing renovation and repair would do this at a stroke.

He also echoed the point I made in the House of Commons on Wednesday about diverting the £4 billion raised annually in carbon taxes that could be earmarked for a mass programme of publicly funded energy efficiency improvements.

The sad irony of this latest Government debacle is that is that money is already in the system that could be used to fund these vital programme of works.  In addition to the £4 billion to which Berry refers, the Chief Medical Officer points out that for every pound spent tackling fuel poverty, NHS spending on treating cold related illnesses is reduced by 42 pence.  This would release around £1.3 billion to invest in insulating Britain's housing stock.  

So these bungling ministers continue to blunder while kids are left languishing on the dole and millions struggle to keep their homes warm.  This is a national scandal and demands urgent attention.  That's why I will continue to press the case for a national plan to end fuel poverty and ensure that no British citizen is forced to live in a cold home.

You can read the fuel poverty debate by clicking on this link: http://tinyurl.com/ppjbfqr

 

 

GIVE US WARMER HOMES BEFORE ROAD AND RAIL SPEND, SAYS UK PUBLIC

THE Energy Bill will be considered in the House of Commons on Wednesday.  I’ve tabled an amendment that would set targets to eradicate fuel poverty, while the Government are seeking to use the Bill to remove its statutory obligation to eradicate fuel poverty.

This is a shameful move by David Cameron, which has been aided and abetted by the Lib Dem Energy Minister, Ed Davey, not least because excessive winter deaths increased by 29 per cent last winter.

The Prime Minister would do well to listen to the British public because people say making homes more energy efficient is a greater infrastructure priority than building HS2, new roads, airports or power stations.

In a poll published yesterday, 85 per cent of adults rank free energy efficiency measures, which could save an average family around £500 every year, in their top three infrastructure priorities.

In fact, 57 per cent of people believe it should be the UK’s number one priority, ahead of building new roads (15 per cent), new power stations (15 per cent), HS2 (3 per cent) or new airports (2 per cent). 
It is an even greater priority for younger people, with energy efficiency for homes coming first for around 70 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds.

In addition, 63 per cent of people say that, of the infrastructure projects, it would have the biggest benefit for them personally, with the number rising to over 70 per cent for those with children and around three quarters of those aged 35 to 44.  The findings were released amid growing concern that the Chancellor will slash investment in energy efficiency in his Autumn Statement next week.

The poll was conducted by TNS for the Energy Bill Revolution, the world’s biggest fuel poverty alliance representing over 150 British businesses, charities, energy companies and unions.  The alliance has warned the Chancellor that reducing annual funding for energy efficiency is a dangerously short-term approach that will prevent thousands of people from escaping fuel poverty.

Ed Matthew, director of the Energy Bill Revolution, said: “The Government has over £100 billion in infrastructure projects planned but not one single penny is set aside to insulate homes. All parties need to listen. What people want more than anything is warm homes.  This must be the UK’s number one infrastructure priority.

Meanwhile, Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders, said: “Energy-efficiency improvements, unlike major road or rail projects, are not at the mercy of our lengthy planning process before they can get started.

“The positive impact on jobs and growth is immediate because energy efficient improvements to our homes can be done right away.  If the Chancellor prioritises this type of capital investment, he will bring about significant economic gains, providing additional work for the UK’s small local builders, who are the backbone of the construction industry.”

With the Energy Bill debate on Wednesday and the Autumn Statement on Thursday, next week will be significant in determining whether the Govt will give any priority to addressing this massive investment requirement.

SHUTTING THE COWSHED DOOR AFTER THE PLAGUE GOT IN

THE Badger Trust says it welcomes the recent flurry of announcements of measures under consideration to control transmission of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) between cattle and between camelids and alpacas, but deplores the 20-year delay in producing them.

Defra is now proposing to impose a zero tolerance policy on English farmers with overdue herd tests.  David Williams, chairman of the Badger Trust, said: “Overdue tests have been a scandal for decades. The cattle industry has stubbornly resisted sensible restrictions on cattle management since the catastrophic rise in bTB began in the early 1990s. Farmers used badgers as scapegoats while they dug their heels in against better regulation of markets and abattoirs, more frequent and improved testing, pre-movement testing and comprehensive biosecurity on farms.

David Williams added: “If the measures we have listed here had been in place when the cattle toll averaged a thousand a year it would never have risen to its present level of almost 30,000.

I remember being chided by the NFU for having the temerity to suggest in a debate, at which I spoke during the 2010 Game Fair, that badgers are often used as an excuse for bad husbandry.

From next year farmers who have not arranged for bTB surveillance and check tests to be carried out by the due date will face cuts to their subsidies. The level of reduction will depend on the length of time the test was overdue.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, admitted in a Commons statement on November 28th that he was addressing a number of “long-standing weaknesses in our bovine TB controls”. Some of these weaknesses were strengthened a year ago, but only at the insistence of the EU. They included annual testing in the south west of England and zoning restrictions.

He proposes consultations on various proposals rather than acting on any of them – action that should have been taken years ago.  He also proposes the pre-movement testing exemption for movements of cattle to and from common land. Also, the lifting of bovine TB restrictions on parts of a restricted holding could be phased out. In future the whole of a holding would be either restricted or officially TB free at any one time. Farmers would be “encouraged” to share details of the disease history of any cattle they sell so buyers would be finally better able to manage any disease risks.

BIOSECURITY STUDY
Northern Ireland has published the results of a two-year study of farm biosecurity measures to assess badger- and cattle-related risk factors for bovine TB breakdowns and the associated biosecurity measures. It recommends further investigation of specific areas such as the potential role of contiguous spread across farm boundaries and greater exploration of the role of cattle movement is recommended.  The report also says farmers should be encouraged to use established biosecurity measures to separate badgers and cattle. The majority of farm boundaries in the study area would have facilitated nose-to-nose contact with cattle on neighbouring farms and the survey team recommends closed herds or pre- and/or post- movement bTB testing and isolation of purchased animals.

ALPACAS AND LLAMAS
In yet another much-needed improvement Defra is “seeking the views” of alpaca and llama owners by  January 10th 2014 about how more could be done to prevent the spread of bovine TB in and among herds, but any measures will still only be voluntary, so failing to close yet another gap in security.

LIB DEMS' DIRECTIONLESS STEWARDSHIP DAMAGED DERBY

WESTFIELD’S decision to exit Derby inevitably made the headlines recently, but it also opened the debate on the broader issue of businesses operating within our city centre.

I remember well when Westfield arrived – I was Leader of Derby City Council at the time.  It transformed Derby’s retail offer, pushing our city way up the retail league and increasing visitor numbers by around 10 million per year. 

But I also remember the wider plans that we had in place at that time.  We had a marketing strategy aimed at bringing destination retailers into the Cathedral Quarter and St Peter’s Street.  We also planned to improve our public spaces to make the city more attractive.

Unfortunately, those strategies were jettisoned in May 2008 when the Liberal Democrats catastrophically took control of the council.  Never in my political life have I witnesses such abysmal leadership of the city as that offered up by the Liberal Democrats during that period.

Under their directionless stewardship, the council sleepwalked through the next two years up to the General Election when the Coalition Government heralded in its devastating austerity programme.  The huge opportunities they had to build on Westfield’s arrival were squandered and are in stark contrast to the massive challenges being faced by the city’s current Labour administration.

That’s why politics matters.  The decisions taken by the Liberal Democrat city leaders (sic) during that period are still impacting on us today.  Were it not for those decisions, areas standing derelict would have been regenerated, more local people currently jobless would be employed and Derby’s public services would be in better shape.

I know Westfield’s decision to sell up has caused some anxiety, but I believe it could actually be a catalyst to improve the retail offer outside the Westfield Centre.  It’s in everyone’s interests, including any new owner of the shopping mall, to continue making Derby as attractive as possible to encourage even more people to come here to shop. 

That is why I support the CBI’s calls for a year-long exemption from business rates for firms that move into vacant properties.  And their request that the Chancellor uses next month’s Autumn Statement to introduce a two per cent cap on business rate rises for the next two years is also sensible.  Given the number of empty shop units on East Street, Albion  Street and St Peter’s Street, these measures would provide a welcome incentive. 

So let’s thank Westfield for choosing Derby to develop its first iconic shopping mall in the UK.  It put our city back on the retail map, produced the best shopping destination in the East Midlands and created 3,000 new jobs in the process.  That’s a great legacy leaving us with solid foundations on which to continue building an exciting and prosperous future for our city centre.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

RIGHTWING MILITANT TENDENCY DRIVING EDUCATION POLICY

MANY teachers already think that Michael Gove’s policies border on lunacy, and a leaked thesis by one of the Education Secretary’s most trusted advisors will have done little to change that view.

The report by Dominic Cummings argues that our young people’s educational performance is not about the quality of teaching, but about genetics.  Now I’m not so blind to biology to doubt that someone’s genetic make-up clearly has a major impact on the person they are.

I’d be unsurprised to learn that there are certain genes that affect learning, and it stands to reason that there are some children more naturally gifted in some areas of education than others.  But Mr Cummings goes some way beyond that.  The implication of his 250-word report is that a child’s educational attainment is almost pre-determined by their DNA.

What a radical and bizarre claim.

Aside from the fact it conflicts with the views of just about every education professional you are ever likely to meet, it somewhat begs the question why Mr Cummings thinks anyone wants to bother trying to raise teaching standards.

All of this reflects very badly on Mr Gove.

Most worryingly, it begs the question what other wild and wonderful ideas have been bounced around in generating some of Mr Gove’s highly controversial changes to education in the last three-and-a-half years.

If Mr Gove’s most trusted aide seems to believe the role of teachers in shaping our young people’s minds is so minimal, does this explain the Secretary of State’s total lack of respect for this vitally important profession?

We in Derby have been on the receiving end of some of Mr Gove’s attacks on education.  We’ve seen academies forced upon the city, and we’ve played host to the most controversial example of Mr Gove’s Free School model, with the Al-Madinah establishment.

And as a city whose children have suffered because of Mr Gove’s interventions, we’ve got every right to feel aggrieved if it now transpires that even the most crackpot ideas are on the table when it comes to the development of Tory education policy.

But what I find particularly worrying about Mr Cummings report is how closely it represents Tory policy generally.

What does Mr Cummings suggest? Do we just abandon schooling and instead put children in a room with the right textbooks and let the natural talent just get on with it while the others flounder?  Well that’s exactly the sort of mentality reflected elsewhere by this Government – a protection of the minority and a total disinterest in supporting, or even thinking about, the majority.

And it is that parallel which makes it very difficult to discount Mr Cummings’ radical views as unconnected from other worrying policies being churned out by Mr Gove and the Tories.

MPs CAN VOTE TO SCRAP THE BEDROOM TAX ON TUESDAY

BEFORE I became a fulltime councillor and then elected as MP, I saw first-hand how people struggled to make ends meet in my profession as a welfare rights officer.

It was a job that could be hugely satisfying but it was also a role which could be quite emotionally draining, as you saw for yourself how people learn to live in the most desperate circumstances.

I dread to think how draining it must be for people in equivalent roles today, as the Tories endless attacks on the poorest continue to drive more families into poverty.

What is all the more galling is that many of the Government’s policies which are causing these difficulties are actually fundamentally flawed.

Take the bedroom tax.  Not only is it causing insufferable hardship for those affected, but far from helping to reduce the country’s deficit it will actually cost more than it saves.

You don’t have to listen to politicians for proof of that.

Even the National Housing Federation believes that those forced to move to the private rented sector because of the bedroom tax will cost the state more in housing benefit.

Then there are the tens of millions likely to be lost through the build-up of arrears – a claim made by various housing associations.

The National Audit Office has said that the Government’s costing does not take account of the full scale of potential impacts and does not include the additional costs faced by local authorities.

And research by the University of York suggests that any potential savings to balance against those costs are likely to be some 39 per cent less than the DWP predicted.

Unfortunately, the Government’s short-sightedness with the bedroom tax is not untypical given that it is has been ill-though out.

The Tories’ economic policy at large is unworkable because it is based on the fundamental misconception that an economy can recover by being shrunk.

A misguided belief that the private sector will ride to the rescue of a scaled back public sector is undermined by a failure to understand that the private sector relies upon local authorities for much of its business.

But what makes the bedroom tax stand out above many other Government policies is the widespread and unfair impact it has had on real people in just about every village, town and city up and down the land.

It is a policy which has attacked around 660,000, including more than 400,000 disabled people.  That includes 40,000 people, and 25,200 disable people, in the East Midlands.

It is a policy designed to drain most those who can least afford it, and which has been described by the National Housing Federation as “an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.

And it is a policy which the next Labour Government will not hesitate in repealing.

But our belief that the bedroom tax is causing more harm than good is not about making an election pledge.

We belief that it is so damaging that it needs to be removed even earlier – and that’s why an Opposition Day debate is planned for the House of Commons on Tuesday to call for just that.

The bedroom tax is leaving families up and down this country with nowhere to go and on the edge of spiralling debt. These people simply can’t wait until the next Labour government in 2015 for it to be repealed.

They need it repealed now, and that’s why I will be voting in support of that tomorrow.

 

RETURN OF THE MAC BRINGS FRESH HOPE OF RAMS SUCCESS

I HAVE not eaten meat for 40 years, but I’ll more than happily support a Big Mac if we’re talking about Derby’s new boss bringing success to Pride Park.

As someone who grew up savouring Brian Clough’s brand of football at the Baseball Ground, like many I inevitably had a soft spot for Clough junior throughout his time at the helm.

But while I was more than a little shocked to see Nigel move on, I was delighted with the appointment of ex-England boss Steve McClaren.

The new Rams’ manager does of course have history in these parts – and I’m not talking about his ill-fated spell down the road in that other city at a club whose name I forget.

His time as a fringe player here in the late 1980s obviously gave him a feel for Derby, but if he didn’t shoot to prominence on the pitch he certainly did off it when he returned as Assistant Manager.

And that’s why I’m hopeful that Steve McClaren will be just what we need to take Derby to the next level.

He knows the place, he understands the city and he’s got a rapport with the supporters. He’s not originally from these parts but he’s almost one of us.

Of course, I’m just a Rams’ supporter like anyone else, and it could just be that I’m getting carried away by the usual hopes and dreams that emerge whenever someone new takes over the hotseat.

But isn’t that what following a football club is all about?

Only time will tell. But let’s give Steve our backing, let’s throw our weight behind him and let’s make that Rams crowd be the 12^th man we know they can every time Pride Park hosts a home game.

Come on you Rams!

AL-MADINAH SCHOOL WERE MERELY PUPPETS PLAYING OUT THE GOVERNMENT’S IDEOLOGICAL EXPERIMENT

DERBY has attracted national headlines in the last few weeks for all the wrong reasons. The city’s Al-Madinah School free school was not necessarily destined for failure, but it was set-up not to succeed by a flawed Government policy which puts education at risk.

Free schools were never going to be the answer to raising educational standards because they are an ideological experiment designed to undermine state education. The policy flies in the face of everything else that is already in place to try to ensure our children benefit from the very best learning environment. It is simply impossible to raise educational standards by giving carte blanche to community groups to run schools as they see fit rather than in accordance with proper procedures.

Why do we bother having rigorous training for teachers when untrained amateurs can educate our youngsters in free schools?

I have already written to the Secretary of State for Education firmly outlining my view that the free school programme should be scrapped. As a bare minimum, I have urged him to give local education authorities an overseeing role to ensure issues like we have seen here in Derby are avoided. Were such a system in place, Al-Madinah would not been allowed to open in the first place as it fell below minimum standards.

The free schools programme is an ill-conceived nonsense and makes a mockery of the years of improvement in educational standards achieved by the last government.

Of course, it’s all too easy to point that finger at Al-Madinah. My gripe isn’t necessarily with the school or the people running it. They are merely puppets playing out the Government’s ideological experiment. No, the blame in this case rests solely at the door of Michael Gove whose desperation to undermine council-run schools has led to this debacle. And the real question now is – if this one slipped through the Government’s net, how many others will follow?

 

BADGER CULL EXTENSION COULD BE UNLAWFUL

Dear Sirs

Proposed Claimant: Badger Trust
Proposed Defendants: Natural England and Secretary of State for
DEFRA

We write further to our pre-action correspondence on 11 October and your response of 17 October.
We understand that the Board of Natural England will shortly be considering an application to grant a licence to cull badgers for a further 8 weeks in Gloucestershire.

We ask them to consider this letter when they do so. It explains why we consider it would be unlawful to grant that further licence. On that basis we ask them not to do so.

Background

In overall terms, as explained below:

• The stated purpose of the culling was to test the effectiveness of the methods in question in reducing the badger population by 70% within 6 weeks maximum.
• That period was widely consulted upon and then robustly defended by DEFRA (including in the face of certain consultees arguing that longer should be allowed for reasons of practicability) on the basis of the expert opinion of the DEFRA Science Advisory Council and TB Science Advisory Board.
• DEFRA promised that the cull would be monitored by the independent expert group. The group was to evaluate and report on the outcome of its testing, including of effectiveness in reducing the badger population by 70% within 6 weeks.

That was explained in many places over a long period by DEFRA and its CVO, Mr Gibbens including as follows.

DEFRA’s policy announcement of December 2011 had explained in clear terms (in its paragraph 5.4) what was to happen:

“… culling will be piloted in two areas, to test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting, overseen by an independent panel of experts. If monitoring of the humaneness, effectiveness and safety indicates that controlled shooting is an acceptable culling technique, then and only then would this policy be rolled out more widely.”
As for what was meant by “effectiveness”, its paragraph 5.30 explained that:
“Culling would also need to be carried out simultaneously across the entire area, so that culling takes place on all participating land within a maximum period of six weeks.”

See also paragraph 5.34:

“In the first year of culling, a minimum number of badgers must be removed through an intensive cull which must be carried out throughout the land to which there is access, over a period of not more than six consecutive weeks.”

That approach was specifically defended and relied on in the Secretary of State’s defence before Ouseley J and the Court of Appeal of our client’s challenge to the legality of what was to happen.
See thus paragraph 35(b) of the Secretary of State’s Detailed Grounds of Resistance:
“Culling will be allowed to take place over a maximum of 6 weeks, rather than over 8-11 nights as in the RBCT.”

See also paragraphs 38-39:

“In terms of the duration of the cull and the fact that it will be allowed to take place for a maximum of 6 weeks rather than over 8-11 nights (as in the RBCT), the Secretary of State has had to take into account the practical considerations in the light of the available scientific evidence. In designing the policy it was not practical or realistic to deliver culling simultaneously (i.e. over a few days) across such a large area (150 km2). As explained by the Chief Veterinary Officer, this issue was considered by DEFRA’s Science Advisory Council and bTB Science Advisory Body … Consequently, the decision to allow culling over a maximum period of 6 weeks was taken in the light of advice from relevant scientific experts in the field.”

On behalf of DEFRA Mr Gibbens firmly explained the purpose of the pilot culls (8d in his second witness statement):

“In relation to ‘effectiveness’ specifically, the purpose is to confirm our assumption that controlled shooting will be an effective method to reduce the population of badgers by 70% within 6 weeks.” [bold added]

On February 2013, in a written Ministerial Statement to Parliament that the pilot badger culls were to proceed this year, the Secretary of State restated that as being the purpose of what was to happen:

“The policy is being piloted in two areas to test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting.” [bold added]

That is still explained currently as the position on the DEFRA website, as follows:

“As a first step, there would be a pilot of the policy in two areas to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness (in terms of badger removal), humaneness and safety of culling.” [bold added]
The website also explains (as part of a public statement on 27 February 2013 confirming that the pilot culls would proceed in 2013, and again entirely consistently with what was set previously) that:
“The pilots are being carried out to test the chosen method of culling through free shooting. The pilots will be independently assessed to check the method is both effective in removing enough badgers and humane.” [bold added]

The December 2011 policy statement had promised the following (paragraph 5.42):

“The design and evaluation of the pilots will be overseen by a panel of independent experts, whose role will include overseeing the design of the data collection, its analysis and interpretation. A decision on further roll-out of a policy that allows controlled shooting will be made following evaluation of results from the six weeks of culling.”

Then at paragraph 6.1:

“As noted at paragraph 5.3 above, controlled shooting will be piloted in two areas initially in the first year in order to test our assumptions about the humaneness, effectiveness and safety of this control method. Culling will be closely monitored in these two areas. The monitoring will be overseen by a panel of independent experts, who will advise on the appropriate methods for monitoring effectiveness and humaneness.”

DEFRA’s response to our client’s judicial review challenge promised this (paragraph 40b):

“The effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting will be monitored during the pilots and thus monitoring will be overseen by a panel of independent experts.” [40b]

Mr Gibbens (writing jointly with DEFRA’s Chief Scientific Officer) made the same point in a public statement on 11 December 2012:

“[The pilot culls] will be overseen and evaluated by an independent panel of experts who will report their findings to ministers.”

As for the 6 week upper limit mentioned above, Mr Gibbens had previously explained (41 in his first witness statement) that “culling will be allowed to be carried out over a maximum of six weeks”.
The six weeks was, itself, controversial.  Our clients and others had argued that a cull taking that long (and so much longer than in the RBCT) could not lead even to the impacts claimed by the RBCT (the conclusions of which were relied on by DEFRA as showing the bTB control benefits of culling.
Mr Gibbens rejected that contention (8c in his second witness statement), not by reference to his own expertise or judgment, but in sole reliance on the conclusions of the experts who had advised DEFRA (as in his NG5) – the joint Science Advisory Council/BTB Science Advisory Board.

The Secretary of State’s skeleton argument also relied solely on those experts on the point. See thus paragraph 28b which explained the ‘minimum criteria’ for the cull, including thus the 6 week limit, which was specifically said to be “based on the advice of the combined DEFRA SAC and SAB” and explained that “The definition of ‘up to six weeks’ is the expert opinion of DEFRA’s SAC and SAB.”
Natural England also relied on those expert groups in supporting the 6 week limit in its own response to the consultation which proceeded adoption of the policy.

Notably, according to DEFRA’s own Summary of Responses to the consultation on the Guidance to be given to Natural England, some respondents argued at the time for a longer period precisely because of concerns about the practicability of completing the task within 6 weeks (i.e. the very thing which has now come to pass). DEFRA robustly rejected that (and other suggestions to change the proposed criteria):

“We do not propose to change fundamentally the licence criteria, as they are criteria which the evidence suggests are necessary to realise the overall reduction in TB in cattle in culled areas achieved in the RBCT. The rationale for each of the criteria is explained in the [December 2011] Policy Statement.”

In other words: what has happened now was foreseeable, and foreseen, and did not change DEFRA’s view that a 6 week limit should be set.

What has happened now

We understand that the licence issued under section 10(2)(a) Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to allow for the culling of badgers over the 6 week pilot period in Gloucestershire expired on 15 October 2013.

We understand from DEFRA’s news announcements yesterday that only 30% of the relevant badger population has been killed within the 6 week period in that area - well short of the 70% minimum target which had been identified as “effective”.

The cull has thus met its purpose in testing the “effectiveness” (in DEFRA’s terms) of culling. It has shown it not to be effective.

However, as far as our clients are aware, the independent expert group which was to monitor the cull and evaluate and report on its outcome has done neither of those things.

Instead, we understand that Natural England is now considering an application to grant a fresh licence (it would not be an extension given that the previous licence has run out) to allow for another 8 weeks of culling in Gloucestershire.

At 17.21 yesterday Natural England sent us:

(1) a copy of advice dated 3 October 2013 from Mr Gibbens supportive of extending the parallel cull in Somerset (after it had achieved a higher rate of killing than in Gloucestershire, but still only 58%).
(2) a copy of a letter from the Secretary of State of 10 October 2013 to Natural England which seems intended to supplement the Statutory Guidance (which itself had been the subject of public consultation even following the original consultation which underpinned the culling policy itself) previously given to Natural England in which 6 weeks had been specified as the limit for the culling pilot.

We consider that the decision to extend the cull in Somerset was unlawful, particularly in the light of those documents.  But given that we have only just seen them and given the relatively shorter extension there, we have advised our clients that it would not now be practicable (given the court process) to seek injunctive relief to prevent it.

But that is not the case in relation to the contemplated decision in relation to Gloucestershire not least because of the much longer extension (8 weeks) being sought (and not yet granted) and the fact that our clients have now seen the nature of the arguments being relied on to justify further culling.

In particular, we assume for this purpose that Mr Gibbens has given similar advice in relation to the Gloucestershire proposal; and that the Secretary of State has written a similar letter. We wrote to you to request these earlier today, and look forward to receiving them with your reply.

We note in that regard that neither document even addresses the actual purpose of the pilot at all: namely to test (so far as is relevant here) the effectiveness of culling (as explained) in reducing the badger population by 70% in 6 weeks. That purpose has now been met, as above, by culling being demonstrated not to be effective in that regard.

Moreover, neither document acknowledges the fact that our clients, the affected communities, and others were repeatedly promised (as above) that the cull would last no more than 6 weeks; and that its effectiveness (on that basis) would then be evaluated at that point by the independent expert group.

Neither document refers to the views of the TBSAB and SAC. We infer that neither was consulted or provided expert input into decision on the new culling period.

Importantly, Mr Gibbens identifies no new material or change of circumstance which could justify the dramatic change of stance which he advocates.

In particular, the only factual change from the position when the policy and guidance was being developed (or when the licence was granted) is the reduced badger number estimate. But that is not the issue here.

On the other hand, the possibility that it might prove practical to cull 70% of the badgers in 6 weeks (i.e. the situation now faced) was precisely contemplated and considered by DEFRA as above. In particular, it was raised by consultees (who presumably argued for a longer period or more flexibility) and – reliant on its expert advice – DEFRA nonetheless stuck with, and robustly defended, the 6 week limit. In particular, it did not then suggest that it might be necessary or appropriate to press on if the 70% target was not reached in the 6 weeks (as has happened now). Nothing has been identified to change that approach, but Mr Gibbens nonetheless appears to have changed his advice about how to respond to that entirely foreseeable and foreseen circumstance.

We note that the letter mentions a provision in the agreement entered into (pursuant to the Guidance) by Natural England and the company carrying out the culling which allowed a mechanism for them to agree extensions to the culling period. But that provision was plainly inconsistent with the Guidance and with the DEFRA’s own policy as above. In any event the fact that a contractual mechanism was put in place does not lend any weight to an argument that it should be deployed, let alone in these circumstances.

Overall, therefore, Natural England is being asked to exercise its power to grant a further 8 week licence:
(1) in breach of what had repeatedly been said by DEFRA (and tested by DEFRA through wide consultation) to be a maximum or upper limit – 6 weeks - set on the basis of the best scientific opinion;
(2) without the cull having been monitored or evaluated at the end of the 6 week period by the independent expert group, as had been promised. It is plainly necessary – at the very least - to take into account their views on the proposed extension before considering permitting any further culling.
(3) without any relevant change of circumstance or situation which was not entirely foreseeable, and foreseen by DEFRA in previously rejecting consultee suggestions that practicality considerations might require a longer than 6 week cull;
(4) on the basis of Mr Gibbens advice when he (and DEFRA more widely) had relied solely on the advice of the SAC and BTSAB in setting, and then defending against criticism, the 6 week limit; and
(5) without taking into account the views of those expert bodies on the proposal to have a further 8 week cull in violation of their previous advice. It is plainly necessary – at the very least - to take into account their views on the proposed extension before considering permitting any further culling.
In the light of those matters we consider it would be unlawful for Natural England to grant the new licence now being sought.

Information and Documents requested

Please provide us with the following key information pursuant to your client’s duty of candour. It is in any event information to which our clients are entitled under the Environment Information Regulations 2004.

1. Any dialogue with or consideration by the independent monitoring expert panel.
2. Any dialogue with or consideration by TBSAB and SAC.
3. Any dialogue with or consideration by the Board of Natural England or its Science Advisory Council.
4. Please confirm specifically if those listed were consulted and, if not, why not.
5. All CVO advice in relation to the cull and its extension.
6. Correspondence between DEFRA to Natural England in this regard.
7. Any updated costs impact assessment and confirmation of who will pay for the cost of additional culling, and associated policing.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully

Bindmans LLP

 

FIREFIGHTERS POSTPONE STRIKE

THE planned firefighters’ strike tomorrow (Saturday) evening has been postponed, after last-minute shifts in stated positions of the government and the employers.

It seems the government and the employers are now saying they will effectively guarantee that no firefighter will be left without either a job or an unreduced pension.

When I was the shadow fire minister, I repeatedly called on the fire minister, Brandon Lewis,  to get back to the negotiating table to avoid strike action.  He ignored my requests prior to the firefighter strike last month, but the resolve of the firefighters and the strength of their case seems to have forced a long overdue rethink by Mr Lewis.

The FBU have received a letter from the fire service employers outlining the basis on which a settlement could be reached.   Brandon Lewis also wrote to them offering a commitment on pensions and a review of fitness training.   

But Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary said today:  “FBU members want firm guarantees and not just fine words.  We have given government the opportunity to progress this matter seriously.

“The Fire Minister has said that the proposal from the employers removes the threat of ‘no job, no pension’.  Firefighters will have serious concerns about this claim and will want cast iron guarantees that this will be addressed properly.

“The FBU has temporally postponed the planned strike to enable these guarantees to be firmed up. However, there are a number of important and unresolved elements of our dispute and we need to be clear that we may have to resort to further strike action.”

A key point in the FBU’s dispute is that many firefighters will be unable to reach the new imposed normal pension age of 60.

The government’s own evidence published in the Williams report outlined that a significant number of firefighters will be unable to maintain the required fitness standards beyond 55 years of age. Consequently, firefighters would ultimately find themselves without a job or access to an unreduced pension unless this is addressed.

LABOUR PLANS TO SAVE THE HIGH STREET

THIS week I voted against the Tory-led Government’s changes to planning rules which will deny communities the right to shape their high streets and stop payday lending and betting shops from taking over.

The Government’s new rules mean that a number of types of business will no longer have to apply for permission to convert a building for a new business or residential use. This will make it easier for payday lenders, betting shops, fast food restaurants and other businesses to continue to spread along the high streets, and will make it harder for councils and communities to have a say in the future of their town centres.

This is the opposite of what our high streets need. Nationally there are 20 per cent more payday loan shops than there were a year ago. Many of these new premises are taking the place of valued local businesses including independent retailers, clothes shops and food shops.

Labour wants to give new powers to councils and local people to support their high streets, by allowing councils to encourage the types of businesses they want to see whilst cutting down on the spread of others like payday lenders.

Ed Miliband has announced that the next Labour Government will raise millions of pounds through a levy on the profits of payday lenders - money which will be used to double the public funds available for low cost alternatives such as credit unions.

LABOUR SETS THE AGENDA

THERE is no doubt who has been setting the agenda as we leave this year's Party Conference season.  Ed Miliband and Labour have identified the real problem of living standards facing families around the country. 

Labour’s emphasis on living standards has certainly resonated with local people in Derby.  Labour’s policy agenda would generate jobs, make it easier for people to balance work and home and tackle Britain’s social needs

Families and businesses need help, and Labour is setting out plans to help them.  Ed Miliband announced that Labour will cut business rates in 2015 and freeze them again in 2016 – prioritising a tax cut for 1.5 million small businesses over a tax cut for 80,000 large businesses.  

We will build the homes that people need and ensure that developers don’t sit on land.  They will be forced to build on it or lose it.  Labour’s house building programme will also generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs in construction and the suppliers that provide the materials for the building industry.

We will support working parents, by expanding free childcare for 3 and 4-year-olds from 15 to 25 hours a week for working parents, paid for by an £800 million rise in the bank levy.  We will increase the number of apprenticeships, by insisting that every medium-sized or large company that hires a skilled worker from outside the EU must do their bit to train the next generation, by taking on an apprentice.

One of the biggest problems families and businesses face right now is rising bills. Energy bills have gone up by an average £300 since David Cameron became Prime Minister, while energy companies’ profits have shot up. Businesses say that energy bills are the second biggest cost they face. When wholesale prices rise, the energy companies pass the costs on to consumers – but when they fall, bills stay high.

That’s why Ed Miliband set out bold plans to reset the energy market and make prices more competitive, forcing them to introduce a simple new tariff structure and creating a tough new energy regulator. And in the time it takes to make these reforms, Labour will freeze your energy bills from the next election until January 2017 – saving a typical household £120 and the average business £1,800. You can see how much you could save by visiting www.freezethatbill.com.

David Cameron and the Conservatives have realised they've got a problem, but have no new ideas to deal with the cost of living crisis that's happening on their watch.

Since David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010, life has got tougher for too many people.

·         We've seen the slowest recovery from recession in 100 years.

·         Nearly a million young people are unemployed.

 

·        Prices have risen faster than wages in a staggering 38 out of 39 months while David Cameron has been in Downing Street.

·         And working people are an average of nearly £1,500 worse off.

The truth is that year after year, people have been working harder, for longer, for less.  Yet at the same time, bankers' bonuses went up by 82 per cent this April, and David Cameron's tax priority has been to give a tax cut to people earning over £150,000 – wages most people here in Derby can only dream of.

Help for a privileged few, nothing for ordinary families. No wonder people think that our Prime Minister is completely out of touch.

We can only tackle the cost of living crisis with an economy that works for working people. The more David Cameron boasts about saving the economy, the more out of touch he looks.  

 

Britain can do better than this, with a Labour Government that fights for you.

TOMORROW'S TEACHERS' STRIKE WAS AVOIDABLE

THE teachers’ strike is as avoidable as the firefighters’ industrial action was last week, but in both cases the Government has failed miserably in its duty to get round a negotiating table and sort it out.

It’s difficult not to feel sympathy for the teachers when Michael Gove is trying to impose changes to pay and conditions which nobody wants and which are fraught with risk.

Take the proposals on performance related pay.  The Government has repeatedly shown how out of touch it is with real people, and this is yet another example.  Teachers are motivated not by money but by a genuine desire to educate and help young people reach their potential.

But that sort of social conscientiousness is alien to Michael Gove and his Tory colleagues.

Then there are the half-baked plans to remove consistency between pay from one school to the next.  There is simply no logic to it and the plans will open schools up to all sorts of risks including equal pay claims.

The Welsh Government has engaged with unions and progress is being made to reach agreement without the need for industrial action.

Michael Gove’s failure to do the same has forced teaching unions to take action they would prefer not to.  The strike will of course cause difficulties for a great many parents, and the blame for that lies squarely at the door of Mr Gove and his Tory Government.

STRIKE ACTION TAKEN AFTER MINISTER FAILS IN HIS DUTIES

BRANDON Lewis’s failure to return to the negotiating table resulted in the predicted industrial response last week, as firefighters underwent a half-day strike.

The Fire Minister’s unwillingness to liaise with union chiefs is an absolute disgrace, especially after the FBU went to great lengths to offer Mr Lewis chance after chance to talk.

 

I was hugely impressed with the attitude shown by firefighters during the four-hour strike, with many pledging that they would still be prepared to jump to action if an emergency required it.

 

That proves beyond doubt that they were motivated by their morals and ultimately committed to protecting the people they serve.

 

Which is more than can be said for Mr Lewis. Any morals he may have once had must have gone out of the window as soon as he was handed a ministerial role.

 

And as for protecting people? Mr Lewis’s firefighter pension plans, which have caused this storm, prove he cares not a jot for public safety and is only interested in saving a quick buck by throwing fitness standards to the wind.

 

Now we hear that all three of Derby’s fire stations are set to close – including two in my Derby North constituency – as the Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service desperately seeks to reduce costs in the light of Government cuts.

 

It is a huge worry in terms of response times and how safe people can feel in their own homes, and once again we are left looking to an uncaring Government to demand a fair deal for our city, by properly supporting this vital emergency service.

 

I was fortunate to meet with some of the striking firefighters during the Labour Party conference, and to hear first-hand their passion for the service and determination to fight for what they consider to be right.

 

They feel angry not just about the proposals to change their pensions, but also about the underhand way in which the Government, and Mr Lewis in particular, have sought to twist public opinion.

 

Misleading pension figures have been published and best-case, rather than realistic, scenarios detailed as Mr Lewis has attempted to win a PR battle.

 

And it should never have been about PR. Mr Lewis should have done his job and negotiated rather than try to spin his way out of trouble.

 

The FBU in Scotland have managed to secure more talks, so why wasn’t Mr Lewis prepared to extend the same courtesy to those in England?

 

It smacks of a Government which is out of touch and a Fire Minister who is well and truly out of his depth.