Liberal Democrats warn that George Osborne’s ringfencing could prove too weak to protect customers Senior Liberal Democrats are demanding drastic action to break up UK banks into separate retail and investment divisions, as banking reform threatens to cause a new rift in the coalition. In a letter to the Observer on the eve of the deadline for industry groups to respond to a government-commissioned report on reform, peers, MPs and senior figures in the national party insist that chancellor George Osborne’s suggested approach falls short of what is needed. The Lib Dems join a list of more than 50 politicians, academics and economists to demand that the party honours its commitments – most recently made at its spring conference – to achieve a full breakup. The group, drawn together by the centre-left pressure group Compass and the New Economics Foundation, says that the Greek financial crisis, and the exposure of British banks to it, highlights the urgent need for action to promote financial stability. Raising concerns that the chancellor is ready to accept only limited reform, as recommended in an initial report by the economist Sir John Vickers, they say that far tougher action is needed. “Ringfencing retail and investment banking through ‘chinese walls’ in the manner suggested and endorsed by the chancellor, George Osborne, will not produce a banking system that is safe and fit-for-purpose,” they write. “If companies can continue to move capital between retail and investment banking, the latter could still endanger the former. As a first step, full separation of banking functions is needed to better insulate the taxpayer against failure. Full separation would provide depositors with institutions they can trust.” The letter suggests that senior Lib Dem and Labour figures are now prepared to work together on banking reform as part of a “progressive alliance” against key Tory policies. The signatories include the Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders and Labour MPs Yasmin Qureshi and Jon Cruddas. Other Lib Dems who signed the letter include Lord Trevor Smith, Linda Jack of the Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee, Prof Richard Grayson, a former head of policy, and Stephen Knight, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. Many Lib Dems believe disagreements over banking reform could cause a coalition split similar to that over the proposed NHS reforms. Splitting up the banks was a cause célèbre for Vince Cable when he was a radical critic of Labour’s handling of the financial crisis. However, the issue was fudged when the coalition agreement was struck after the general election, with both parties signing up to the idea that an independent commission would report on the future of the banks. Led by Vickers, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, the commission issued its first report in April, calling for a “ringfence” around customers’ deposits to stop them being used to fund risky investment banking activities, derided as “casino banking” by Cable in opposition. Osborne surprised financial markets by using his Mansion House speech last month to suggest that he would accept the proposals before the final Vickers report is produced in the autumn. But now his hope of drawing a line under the financial sector controversy looks in trouble as a growing number of politicians and experts are warning that the proposals lack teeth. Former chancellor Nigel Lawson said that he expected the Vickers commission to shrug off Osborne’s efforts to pre-empt its final conclusions. Lawson believes the ringfence suggested in Vickers’s preliminary report – and apparently endorsed by Osborne – is not sufficiently radical. “My fear is that it works on paper, but it would not work in the real world,” he said. “I think there needs to be a structural solution.” Paul Fisher, a director at the Bank of England, conceded last week that uncertainty about regulatory reform was weighing on financial markets. The government has faced relentless lobbying from City banks threatening an exodus from the Square Mile and Canary Wharf if a full-blown breakup went ahead. But the bank’s governor, Sir Mervyn King, has called for a “clean” solution to the problem of banks that have become “too big to fail”. The New Economics Foundation’s Tony Greenham warned that the Vickers proposal, involving Chinese walls protecting retail banking, would be bureaucratic and complex. “Behavioural remedies are never as effective as institutional remedies,” he said. “You can create a set of rules to help people behave in a certain way, but they will find ways around that — that’s what highly paid bankers do. It would be a much less bureaucratic solution just to split them up.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Banking Liberal Democrats Conservatives George Osborne Bank of England Toby Helm Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Liberal Democrats warn that George Osborne’s ringfencing could prove too weak to protect customers Senior Liberal Democrats are demanding drastic action to break up UK banks into separate retail and investment divisions, as banking reform threatens to cause a new rift in the coalition. In a letter to the Observer on the eve of the deadline for industry groups to respond to a government-commissioned report on reform, peers, MPs and senior figures in the national party insist that chancellor George Osborne’s suggested approach falls short of what is needed. The Lib Dems join a list of more than 50 politicians, academics and economists to demand that the party honours its commitments – most recently made at its spring conference – to achieve a full breakup. The group, drawn together by the centre-left pressure group Compass and the New Economics Foundation, says that the Greek financial crisis, and the exposure of British banks to it, highlights the urgent need for action to promote financial stability. Raising concerns that the chancellor is ready to accept only limited reform, as recommended in an initial report by the economist Sir John Vickers, they say that far tougher action is needed. “Ringfencing retail and investment banking through ‘chinese walls’ in the manner suggested and endorsed by the chancellor, George Osborne, will not produce a banking system that is safe and fit-for-purpose,” they write. “If companies can continue to move capital between retail and investment banking, the latter could still endanger the former. As a first step, full separation of banking functions is needed to better insulate the taxpayer against failure. Full separation would provide depositors with institutions they can trust.” The letter suggests that senior Lib Dem and Labour figures are now prepared to work together on banking reform as part of a “progressive alliance” against key Tory policies. The signatories include the Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders and Labour MPs Yasmin Qureshi and Jon Cruddas. Other Lib Dems who signed the letter include Lord Trevor Smith, Linda Jack of the Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee, Prof Richard Grayson, a former head of policy, and Stephen Knight, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. Many Lib Dems believe disagreements over banking reform could cause a coalition split similar to that over the proposed NHS reforms. Splitting up the banks was a cause célèbre for Vince Cable when he was a radical critic of Labour’s handling of the financial crisis. However, the issue was fudged when the coalition agreement was struck after the general election, with both parties signing up to the idea that an independent commission would report on the future of the banks. Led by Vickers, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, the commission issued its first report in April, calling for a “ringfence” around customers’ deposits to stop them being used to fund risky investment banking activities, derided as “casino banking” by Cable in opposition. Osborne surprised financial markets by using his Mansion House speech last month to suggest that he would accept the proposals before the final Vickers report is produced in the autumn. But now his hope of drawing a line under the financial sector controversy looks in trouble as a growing number of politicians and experts are warning that the proposals lack teeth. Former chancellor Nigel Lawson said that he expected the Vickers commission to shrug off Osborne’s efforts to pre-empt its final conclusions. Lawson believes the ringfence suggested in Vickers’s preliminary report – and apparently endorsed by Osborne – is not sufficiently radical. “My fear is that it works on paper, but it would not work in the real world,” he said. “I think there needs to be a structural solution.” Paul Fisher, a director at the Bank of England, conceded last week that uncertainty about regulatory reform was weighing on financial markets. The government has faced relentless lobbying from City banks threatening an exodus from the Square Mile and Canary Wharf if a full-blown breakup went ahead. But the bank’s governor, Sir Mervyn King, has called for a “clean” solution to the problem of banks that have become “too big to fail”. The New Economics Foundation’s Tony Greenham warned that the Vickers proposal, involving Chinese walls protecting retail banking, would be bureaucratic and complex. “Behavioural remedies are never as effective as institutional remedies,” he said. “You can create a set of rules to help people behave in a certain way, but they will find ways around that — that’s what highly paid bankers do. It would be a much less bureaucratic solution just to split them up.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Banking Liberal Democrats Conservatives George Osborne Bank of England Toby Helm Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A leaked letter, from the office of Eric Pickles has warned that welfare reform will make 40,000 more people homeless David Cameron has been warned by one of his most trusted cabinet ministers that his welfare policies risk making 40,000 families homeless. The extraordinary claim, in a letter to the prime minister from the office of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, exposes deep splits at the heart of government over plans to cap benefit at £500 a week per family. The letter, leaked to the Observer , reveals Pickles’s belief that the cap – announced with great fanfare at last year’s Tory conference – will increase the burden on taxpayers, because thousands of families will be unable to pay their rent and will have to seek local government help. It blows apart the government’s public insistence that a limit on benefit payments will have little impact on homelessness and child poverty. Written by Nico Heslop, Pickles’s private secretary, at the clear instigation of the minister, the letter lays bare fears of mass homelessness “disproportionately impacting on families”. It says: ■ 40,000 families will be made homeless by the welfare reforms, putting further strain on services already “seeing increased pressures”. ■ An estimated £270m saving from the benefits cap will be wiped out by the need to divert resources to help the newly homeless and is likely to “generate a net cost”. ■ Half of the 56,000 affordable homes the government expects to be constructed by 2015 will not be built because developers will realise they will not be able to recoup even 80% of market rates from tenants. The leak is the first time that disagreements over welfare cuts have surfaced within the Tory high command. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the letter suggested ministers had not come clean over the effects of their policy. “We were assured by ministers that costs wouldn’t rise. Now top-level leaks reveal the truth. Iain Duncan Smith has promised the House of Commons he will not U-turn on the benefits cap. Perhaps now David Cameron will order him to think again.” Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat welfare spokeswoman who has already warned that a rigid cap would increase child poverty, said she remained “very worried” about the proposals, which are due to come into effect in 2013. Last month, employment minister Chris Grayling rebuffed an attempt by Labour to protect those facing homelessness from the benefit cap. Dismissing a Labour amendment to the welfare reform bill, he said: “It is not yet clear to what extent they would be affected by the overall benefit cap.” The bill has since passed to the Lords, although the revelations will only fuel existing concerns among Liberal Democrat and Labour peers. Labour MP Karen Buck, who sits on the Commons committee, said Pickles’s letter proved there was confusion and division at the centre of government. “The housing department and the benefits department are pursuing policies which don’t just cut across, but actively undermine, each other,” she said. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, the charity for the homeless, said: “With 21% of people struggling to meet housing costs, it’s naive to think you can cut support without putting some people at risk of losing their home. The coalition government should stop bulldozing through badly thought-through policies while ignoring independent evidence, its own expert panel and the views of those who will deal with the very real impact on people.” Enver Solomon, policy director at the Children’s Society, said: “The social costs of the cap are huge and would have disastrous consequences for many children.” The leaking of the letter will be a source of considerable embarrassment to the government. It was sent by Heslop to Cameron’s private secretary, Matthew Style – the normal channel of communication used by cabinet ministers for formal matters of policy. Over two pages, the fears of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are spelled out over “some very serious practical issues for DCLG priorities”. The letter says: “Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to the housing benefit. We are already seeing increased pressures on the homelessness services.” It adds: “We are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m [per year] from 2014-2015, does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost.” The letter then claims that with the reduction in the benefit families can claim, developers will not be able to recoup anything close to a market rent and so will not have an incentive to build homes. “Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost,” the letter says. “And reductions would disproprortionately affect family homes rather than small flats.” Of a proposed policy that families would be required to divert part of the general benefits, such as child benefit, to cover housing costs, it adds: “It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate.” A spokesman for Pickles said: “We are fully supportive of all the government’s policies on benefits. Clearly action is needed to tackle the housing benefit bill which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour.” Welfare Eric Pickles David Cameron Iain Duncan Smith Child benefit Communities Children State benefits Daniel Boffey Toby Helm guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Major retailers tell Commons committee that proposed groceries code regulation would lead to further price inflation Long-awaited legislation on how supermarkets treat suppliers looks likely to be derailed or rendered toothless by “heavy artillery lobbying” from big retailers. Asda, Sainsbury’s, the British Retail Consortium and the Co-op have all told a Commons select committee that the proposed groceries code adjudicator is an unnecessary extra burden on supermarkets and that it would lead to higher food prices. Though the draft bill reflects manifesto promises by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the government is likely to heed the retailers’ threat. Food price inflation, at 4.9%, is a major concern as global prices seem likely to rise in the long term. Yet organisations ranging from the National Farmers Union to Friends of the Earth and ActionAid say the bill is crucial to tackle years of abuse and restrictive practices as the supermarkets have upped their profits during the downturn by squeezing smaller suppliers. Three thousand farmers and other suppliers have gone out of business in Britain as a direct result of supermarkets’ bullying and unfair buying policies, according to Andrew George, MP for West Cornwall, who heads the Grocery Market Action Group. He said the potential cost of the adjudicator to the retailers was “a gnat bite”, as long as they carried out their business fairly. The government introduced a binding code of practice on the 10 biggest retailers and processors after two damning Competition Commission reports. The supermarkets say that the code is working well – there have been no complaints made under it – and so there is no need for an ombudsman. But the NFU says that a “climate of fear” prevents hard-pressed farmers complaining lest there be “reprisals”. Campaigners want the bill toughened to allow an ombudsman to hear anonymous complaints and impose fines. An Observer investigation backs up the NFU’s accusation. Among dozens of farmers interviewed, only very few felt able to let their names be used. Yet the practices they revealed – including “no-price contracts”, being forced to sell their produce on two-for-one discounts, and having to use supermarkets’ preferred middlemen at vastly increased cost – are all banned by the code of conduct and may be illegal. Special investigation, pages 8-9 Pig farmers have been selling their animals at a £10-£30 loss since August last year, when a huge and unexpected rise in the price of feed hit them. But supermarkets have largely refused to allow any price increases, and 30 farmers have gone out of business this year, according to the National Pig Association. One dairy farmer complained to the Observer that he was getting only 1p more per litre of milk than he was in 1997, though the price in the supermarket has gone from 42p to 80p or more. The NFU says that at least one dairy farmer in Britain has gone out of business every day for a decade. Andrew George MP said: “We need this measure: food producers here and in the developing world want to concentrate on being able to provide healthy food for customers, they do not want to perpetually fight the supermarkets for survival.” Farming Supermarkets Inflation Food & drink industry Alex Renton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former favourite to win 2012 presidential election may return to France more popular than ever if cleared of all charges French Socialists were in chaos as key figures speculated whether Dominique Strauss-Kahn could return to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential race next year, throwing the party into another round of instability and internal ego-clashes. Strauss-Kahn was the clear favourite to win the 2012 presidential election before he was arrested for allegedly attempting to rape a New York hotel maid in May. He is no longer under house arrest, but still faces seven charges ranging from attempted rape to sexual assault. If he is cleared or charges are dropped, supporters such as former culture minister Jack Lang suggested he could return to France more popular than ever before. Strauss-Kahn’s possible return has thrown the Socialist party’s primary race into disarray. The party had presumed his presidential hopes were dead and opened its selection process for another candidate last week. Candidates must declare by 13 July for an October vote, but Strauss-Kahn’s next hearing is scheduled for 18 July. Current front-runner François Hollande was the first to declare this weekend that he had “no problem” with pushing back the declaration date until the end of August, allowing Strauss-Kahn to return from New York if charges were dropped quickly. But the party’s interim leader, Harlem Désir, snapped back that there didn’t seem to be “any reason” to move the deadline. The row has weakened Martine Aubry, who declared her presidential bid last week, but had a pact with Strauss-Kahn and could be pressured to stand aside for him. All depends on whether the prosecution maintains its case and goes to trial or quickly drops charges against Strauss-Kahn, and if so how the French public and opinion polls perceive him. Even while the charges still stand, some French supporters presented him as an innocent victim, hero and martyr. Left-wing philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy spoke of a noble man who had been the victim of a “spiral of horror and calumny”. He told Le Parisien that Strauss-Kahn had been “lynched” by the “friends of minorities” in the US. He said that because the victim was “poor and immigrant” she had been presumed innocent, and because Strauss-Kahn was “powerful” he had been presumed guilty. Sylvie Pierre-Brossolette, political editor of the weekly Le Point , felt “anything is possible”. A returning Strauss-Kahn might be seen by the French as “hero” mistreated or “humiliated” by the American justice system. Much would depend on whether French left voters still saw him as a “saviour” against Sarkozy, she wrote. But while many Socialists felt DSK could return triumphant if totally cleared, others worried about the stain the case would leave on French politics and the damage done by revelations about his private life and his attitude to women. Since his arrest, a French taboo has been broken and Strauss-Kahn’s behaviour towards women, deemed “libertine” by his friends, has been raked over. Socialist Anne Mansouret, who said she regretted dissuading her daughter, journalist Tristane Banon, from pressing charges over an alleged sexual assault in 2002, had said Strauss-Kahn had a “problem” with women which could be seen as a sickness. Strauss-Kahn seemed not to be worried about his political image on Friday night when he went out for a $100 bowl of pasta with friends, casting aside the controversy in France that he should tone down his image of “champagne socialism”. Socialist MP Marisol Touraine, a key DSK ally, said she hoped for Strauss-Kahn’s “rehabilitation” but warned that he would not be able to return to a “status quo” in France as if nothing had happened. Gérard Collomb, the mayor of Lyon and Strauss-Kahn supporter, warned that Strauss-Kahn should first “rebuild himself” before a possible return to the presidential race, warning that no one emerged from such a case “unscathed”. Pollsters cautioned that Strauss-Kahn’s return would be shaped by whether the American justice system cleared him or whether charges were dropped, leaving doubts. Pascal Perrineau, of Paris’s Institute of Political Science, said that if Strauss-Kahn was cleared of all suspicion, his return to France could still be complicated. “If a strong doubt persists over his behaviour, and even if that behaviour isn’t as criminal as was once suggested, a return [to politics] seems really very difficult,” he told Reuters. Gerald Bronner, a sociologist at Strasbourg university, said: “This case has allowed another image of Strauss-Kahn to be put forward in French public opinion. The public wasn’t informed of the slightly libertine side of his personal life.” Jean Veil, Strauss-Kahn’s French lawyer, said: “He will speak once he’s in France and cleared of all suspicion.” Dominique Strauss-Kahn France Europe Nicolas Sarkozy Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge gear up to visit Quebec, centre of the separatist movement, where protests are planned The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Canadian tour enters its second, and potentially trickiest, phase today as the couple visit French-speaking territory. They arrive in Montreal this afternoon and will spend the night aboard a Canadian navy frigate sailing up the St Lawrence river to Quebec City, traditionally the centre of the separatist movement, for Sunday. Royal visitors have had an uncertain welcome in Quebec province – where more than 80% of the population speak French – in recent decades. The Queen has not returned to Quebec city since protesters turned their backs on her and booed in 1964, and two years ago Prince Charles and Camilla were held up by scuffles between demonstrators and police as they visited Montreal. Radical young protesters from the Quebec Resistance Network have called for a demonstration outside the city hall on Sunday, though they have promised it will be peaceful. Patrick Bourgeois, leader of the network, said the separatists want to send a message “that the monarchy is not welcome in Quebec”. Prince William has emphasised Canada’s bilingualism and dual identity – “Bonne fête, Canada, happy birthday,” he exclaimed in a speech. The visit to Quebec province is a sign that the authorities believe their appearance there will be a success. In a recent poll, more than half of those questioned described themselves as excited by the prospect of seeing them. During the first two days of their tour in Ottawa, the royal couple have been greeted by huge and adulatory crowds. More than 300,000 people were estimated to have crowded around the capital’s parliament hill during the Canada Day celebrations on Friday, many of them travelling for hours and some sleeping out to catch a glimpse of the prince and his bride. Although the duchess has not visited Canada before, her husband has stressed her links to the country where he recalled that her grandfather had trained as a pilot in Alberta during the second world war. The Queen has visited Canada more frequently than any other country: 22 times, most recently last year. On Saturday morning, the royal couple will go through the near-obligatory tree-planting ceremony at the governor-general’s residence – a Canadian hemlock. Later they will meet military veterans and members of the war brides association at the Canadian war museum – nearly 45,000 young British and European women emigrated to the country after the second world war. Arriving in Montreal later in the afternoon, the couple will tour the Sainte-Justine university hospital centre, which has a world-renowned children’s unit, before joining a cooking workshop at the Institut de Tourisme. Prince William Monarchy Kate Middleton Canada Protest Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
UPDATE: Myspace CEO Mike Jones released a company-wide email and press release announcing the social network’s sale to Specific Media. “Specific Media, a digital media company, today announced it has acquired Myspace from News Corporation,” the release reads. “As part of the agreement, News Corporation will take a minority equity stake in Specific Media. Additional terms of the agreement are confidential and will not be disclosed.” In his email, Jones confirmed earlier rumors that layoffs would occur at Myspace this week. Wrote Jones, “In conjunction with the deal, we are conducting a series of restructuring initiatives, including a significant reduction in our workforce.” Visit TechCrunch to read the full release. — PREVIOUSLY: According to Kara Swisher of All Things D, Myspace will reportedly be sold for $35 million dollars. “Sources close to the situation said the deal is being completed today, although has not been officially signed. Myspace’s owner, News Corp. is holding onto a very small stake of five to 10 percent,” writes Swisher. The sources also said that Specific Media, a digital ad network that helps sells targeted advertising space to marketers, cast the winning bid for the fallen social network, which News Corp. had previously hoped to unload for $100 million. The Wall Street Journal reports that, by Wednesday, Golden Gate Capitol was the only prospective buyer. “A Myspace deal would give the company [Specific Media] access to data about Myspace users to be used for ad targeting,” writes the Journal. “It also would transform the firm into a media company with its own ad space to sell instead of simply an online ad technology firm that brokers ad space on behalf of other websites.” The deal may also require Myspace to lay off half of its remaining workforce, which numbers around 400. Check out the slideshow (below) to see the history of Myspace since 2003.
Continue reading …Maria Sharapova v Petra Kvitova – Wimbledon 2011 women’s final live! | Scott Murray
July 2, 2011 No Comment
• Email scott.murray@guardian.co.uk with all your thoughts • Press F5 to refresh this page or use our auto-refresher Here they come. A long march through the clubhouse. Both women are given huge sprays of flowers before they take to the court. Kvitova smiles shyly. Sharapova looks stern and serious. Both look nervous as they wait to be announced to Centre Court. And they have a fair old wait before they’re allowed to enter the arena. Which they eventually do, to trademark polite Wimbledon applause. If I’m ranking the flowers, Sharapova’s arrangement looks a bit more varied in colour to me. Kvitova’s bunch is a tad purple heavy. Too many Purple Flowers (purplus indigo flowerum) . Sharapova wins the toss, but strangely allows Kvitova to serve first. Hugely Talented Sports Star In Feet On Ground shock: Kvitova’s just been interviewed on the BBC. A more charming chat you’ll do well to lug in on. Do you like designer gear, she’s asked? “Nah. I like normal clothes, jeans and t-shirt. Sometimes a dress. I don’t want to change, I just want to be like everyone else, I’m nothing special.” The crowd: Increasingly unfunny. The weather: Overcast / sunny. They’ll be out soon to knock up. Play begins at 2pm. And with the dust coming down, the two deserving finalists are Maria Sharapova and Petra Kvitova. The 24-year-old Russian is hot favourite to win her first slam since the Australian Open in 2008 – it would be her second Wimbledon title, after the victory in 2004 which saw her introduce the concept of text messaging to Sue Barker – but the 21-year-old big-hitting left-handed Czech is hotly tipped as a future slam winner. Here’s hoping for a classic tussle to put the cherry on a fine 2011 tournament. You can’t knock the quality of the Ladies Singles this year. The intensity of the fascinating Marion Bartoli. Amazing comebacks for Venus and Serena Williams. Shocking defeats – possibly of the harbinger variety – for Venus and Serena Williams. Promising performances by Plucky Brits® Heather Watson and Laura Robson. The wildcard heroics of Sabine Lisicki. Barry Davies back in the commentary box. The simply astonishing Kimiko Date-Krumm. It’s been a blast . Those who continually knock the women’s game want to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror. Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Maria Sharapova Petra Kvitova Tennis Scott Murray guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Jobsworths misusing rules to ban fun at school, says health and safety chief
July 2, 2011 No Comment
Agency vows to challenge ‘daft and misguided decisions’ that make playground games, sport and science lessons dull Misguided “jobsworths” are preventing children from enjoying traditional playground games through the over-zealous application of health and safety laws, says the watchdog for the legislation. Judith Hackitt, head of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), accused schools and councils of using health and safety rules to avoid providing activities that might cost money or expose them to being sued. She said children’s play and education had been damaged, with some playgrounds becoming joyless no-go areas, while science lessons had been hampered by bans on practical experiments. Hackitt warned the HSE would challenge bureaucrats who attribute “daft decisions” to ban innocuous activities to safety rules. Warning that “the gloves are off”, she said the rules were wrongly blamed for decisions to make children wear goggles when playing conkers and ban running at a pancake race. “The creeping culture of risk aversion and fear of litigation … puts at risk our children’s education and preparation for adult life,” she told the Telegraph. “Children today are denied – often on spurious health and safety grounds – many of the formative experiences that shaped my generation. Playgrounds have become joyless, for fear of a few cuts and bruises. Science in the classroom is becoming sterile and uninspiring.” She said the problem was not just confined to schools, citing the recent decision to turn off the big screens at Murray Mount in case spectators slipped on the wet grass. The people behind unreasonable rulings were often “well-meaning but misguided jobsworths” who go too far, said Hackitt, adding that many organisations imposed restrictions not out of concern for people’s safety but due to fears of no-win no-fee lawsuits for personal injury. Other bodies used the guidance as a cynical excuse to cut services, she added. Her comments came as the education secretary, Michael Gove, announced an overhaul of the red tape required for children to go on school trips, which he said would mean a “more common-sense approach to health and safety”. The Department for Education, along with the HSE, is publishing new guidelines for parents and teachers in England, which it hopes will mean more children go on school trips. The department has cut its 150 pages of health and safety guidelines to eight, and directed schools and local authorities to ditch “unnecessary paperwork”. Paul Tombs, head of education at insurers Zurich Municipal, said only 3% of local authority personal injury claims related to educational activities. He said: “We therefore consider that any public perception and fear over a lack of available insurance cover, or a perceived rise in premiums for these activities, is unfounded.” Health Schools Education policy Health policy Public services policy School sports School trips David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Coalition of 270 groups may seek judicial review claiming welfare cuts ignore impact and breach equality law The government faces a legal challenge from charities over its plans to cut benefits for disabled people by more than £2bn. The Disability Alliance has warned the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that it will take legal action to obtain a judicial review of ministers’ plans to replace Disability Living Allowance . The alliance, a coalition of 270 disability charities, said ministers had not properly assessed the negative impact of the benefit cuts, adding that the reforms did not comply with the Equality Act. It has issued a “letter of claim” to the DWP calling for it to demonstrate that it has fulfilled its legal obligations to properly analyse the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people. If the department does not comply, the letter also warns that ministers face legal action. Neil Coyle, Disability Alliance director of policy, said the government may be in breach of both domestic and European legislation, including its responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. “We are giving formal notice that unless the concerns that disabled people have legitimately raised are addressed in the context of the Welfare reform bill, there is a strong legal case,” Coyle told the BBC. “Our legal advice … is that the government may be in breach of both domestic and European legislation if it fails to consider the impact on disabled people of the plans to cut £2.17bn from DLA expenditure.” The alliance contends the government’s welfare reform bill will disproportionately disadvantage disabled people and their families. Among its main concerns are proposals to abolish the care component of DLA at the lowest rate of just under £20 a week, which is received by 652,000 people, and to end mobility support for disabled care home residents, without clarifying how the impact of this loss in support would be mitigated for the 78,000 disabled people affected or their families. Coyle said disability charities were threatening to take legal action because the government had ignored the concerns they raised in the formal consultation on the welfare reform bill, which ended in February. Coyle said more than half of the disabled people who use the DLA to support them in work, they say they would have to give up their job if the benefit was cut. “For many disabled people, it helps to pay for an adapted vehicle, so if you can’t afford to run a vehicle, and that’s what you’re using DLA for, there’s a strong chance you won’t be able to continue in work. “One in seven disabled people have been telling us that without DLA they won’t be able to manage their health condition or impairment, and they’re more likely to have hospitalised periods, which cost far more to the taxpayer than paying, for example, £19.55 a week, which is the bit of the DLA expenditure the government is targeting for ending.” The DWP said: “We are following the usual processes and are working with disability organisations on DLA reforms, including with the design of the assessment. “It is premature to talk about a judicial review as the regulations do not go through until 2012.” Disability Charities Voluntary sector Welfare Public services policy Conservatives Liberal Democrats Liberal-Conservative coalition Equality Equality Act 2010 David Batty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …