Politics First ACTAsia article by ACTAsia

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

CONTENTS

6 COLUMNS: Jon Craig looks at how Theresa May is performing as Prime Minister 7 CORRIDORS: Natascha Engel calls for Parliamentary reform Philippa Whitford argues for urgent and long-term action to save NHS England Alan Mak on how the UK economy can capitalise on pro-innovation policies Lucy Allan discusses how Telford is at the heart of the Midlands Engine Nicola Blackwood sets out how to tackle the stigma surrounding HIV Robert Flello assesses the use of diesel William Wragg warns about the vulnerability of white working-class boys in schools 32 SPOTLIGHT: WHERE NEXT FOR THE UK ECONOMY? Peter Dowd, Stewart Hosie and Baroness Susan Kramer 42 DIARY PAGE: Nigel Nelson

Publisher & Editor:

Marcus Papadopoulos Editorial Advisor:

Keith Richmond Editorial Board:

Commercial Director: Jonathon Wellings Design and Production Consultant: Jonathan Allinson

Paul Routledge John Bretherton Terry Ashton Michael Pownall

Suite 4, Metropolitan House

Working together with:

38-40 High Street Website Manager: Kris Apro

Esther McVey Lionel Zetter

c/o Government Knowledge

The views expressed in Politics First are not necessarily those of First Publishing Limited and its directors.

Published by: First Publishing Limited

Finance Director: Senel Mehmet

Croydon, CR0 1YB editor@ﬁrstpublishing.org www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk © First Publishing Limited

Editorial and Subscriptions: Tel: 0797 237 4529 Advertising: Tel: 020 3179 1186

ISSN 2046-4258 Company number: 7965752

Printed in the UK by The Magazine Printing Company using only paper from FSC/PEFC suppliers www.magprint.co.uk

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

WELCOME The decision of the British public to leave the European Union is the most significant event in British political history since the Second World War. Indeed, supporters and opponents of Brexit are unified in the conviction that the ramifications for the UK of leaving the bloc are huge. Whilst the warning issued by David Cameron and George Osborne of Britain going into recession, in the event of a Brexit vote, has not materialised, the UK, once it separates from the EU, will be in unchartered waters. And at stake for the UK is the British economy (not to forget, of course, the territorial integrity of Britain, too). To discuss where next for the UK economy in a post-Brexit world, which is the Spotlight of this edition, Politics First has asked Peter Dowd, Stewart Hosie and Baroness Susan Kramer to offer their opinions. Dr Marcus Papadopoulos, Publisher and Editor of Politics First

In the Columns section, Jon Craig, Sky News’ Chief Political Correspondent and a longstanding columnist of Politics First, assesses Theresa May as a Prime Minister and what could derail her premiership. Many subject areas are discussed in the Corridors section, highlighting what is currently occurring and being spoken about in Whitehall and Westminster. Nicola Blackwood sets out what the government is doing to treat HIV, while Louise Ellman argues that improving transport links is crucial to stimulating local economic growth and regeneration. Lucy Allan discusses the Midlands Engine and why Telford is at the heart of this, and Clive Betts outlines the work of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee in protecting England’s parks. And in a particularly pertinent article, John Baron calls for a new and more sensible approach to British Foreign Policy. As always, there are many other articles in the Corridors section and ones which constitute must-read pieces for parliamentarians and journalists, alike. I hope you enjoy reading this edition and I look forward to following the discussions which arise from it.

Be ﬁrst to get Politics First with guaranteed delivery on the day of publication. Why not treat a friend with a gift subscription to keep them up-to-date with key issues of the day. Yes, I would like to subscribe to Politics First for only £20 per annum YOUR DETAILS Title...............Forename.....................................................................Surname..................................................................... Address................................................................................................................................................................................ ...........................................................................................................Postcode.................................................................... Phone.....................................................................................Mobile.................................................................................... Email..................................................................................................................................................................................... Cheques should be made payable to First Publishing Ltd and sent to: Politics First, First Publishing Limited, c/o Government Knowledge, Suite 4, Metropolitan House, 38-40 High Street, Croydon, CRO 1YB 05

politics ﬁrst | Columns

Can risk-averse Theresa May be toppled?

JON CRAIG Eye in the Sky

When she was Home Secretary, Theresa May and I used to meet for a cup of tea at the Tory conference, usually on the afternoon before her speech. On one occasion, after I ordered Earl Grey, I said to her: “I always bring Earl Grey tea bags to party conferences, in case there aren’t any in the hotel room.” “So do I!”, she replied. “So do I!” That is a woman who leaves nothing to chance.

Of course, all new Prime Ministers enjoy a honeymoon period. But Theresa May’s has been nothing short of astonishing. An analysis by the Press Association suggested that after six months in No. 10, she had enjoyed the longest of any Tory PM since the 1950s (According to pollsters, a typical honeymoon period for Prime Ministers usually lasts just two or three months).

Six months after becoming Prime Minister, she revealed, at PMQs on the day after her big Brexit speech, how she operates as a politician. “When I look at the issue of Brexit, or, indeed, at any other issue, such as the National Health Service or social care, I consider the issue, I set out my plan and I stick to it”, she said.

Theresa May’s 14-point lead over Labour, after six months as PM, was only bettered by Tony Blair’s 29-point lead over the Conservatives in 1997. Of the Tory Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher was ﬁve points behind Labour after six months, John Major six down and David Cameron one point ahead. Labour’s Harold Wilson was nine points ahead, six months after both his 1964 and 1974 victories. Gordon Brown was down eight points after six months.

So now we know the May method, as if we didn’t already, which is: Consider the issue, set out a plan, then stick to it. It’s how she operated at the Home Office, too. She’d spend weeks, or even months, almost observing a vow of Trappist silence, apart from her obligatory appearances at Home Office questions or other Commons business. But then: Bang! All of a sudden, she’d unleash a headline-grabbing onslaught, which had obviously been in preparation for months, such as going to war against the police in a speech at the Police Federation conference. On Brexit, Mrs May was under pressure for months to reveal her strategy. But she was unflinching in sticking to her timetable of making a speech this January, in spite of the added pressure of a pre-Christmas Commons vote demanding a Brexit plan and the distraction of the Gina Miller court case. 06

The honeymoon can’t go on, can it? No, of course not. Pollsters have pointed out, quite rightly, that Theresa May’s commanding poll lead is partly a reﬂection of Labour’s weakness under Jeremy Corbyn, rather than Tory strength. So what could go wrong? Well, lots actually. For a start, despite the Brexit bounce for the PM before triggering Article 50, the Brexit negotiations could go horribly wrong or even collapse, which could see her poll ratings plummet. Then there’s what Harold Macmillan called, “events, dear boy, events” and “Thatcher’s law”, as she called it: “In politics, the unexpected always happens.” A popular Prime Minister can very quickly become an unpopular one.

One mistake Gordon Brown made, which Theresa May has avoided, was marching the country to the top of the hill for an election in 2007, only to march it down again after bottling it. She has been firm and consistent in ruling out an early election. But the NHS crisis is one issue where she’s very wobbly. Her attempt to play it down as “a small number of incidents” in her New Year interview with Sophy Ridge, on Sky News, was insensitive and clumsy by her usually meticulous standards. The social care funding crisis is blamed by many voters – and even some Conservative council leaders – on “Tory cuts”. A sudden downturn in the economy, with big job losses, could plunge her into trouble, too, whether it’s caused by Brexit or other factors. And, despite the Tories’ attempts to blame the crippling strikes on the railways on militant trade unions, many commuters blame the Government for the travel chaos. There’s one other way the May honeymoon could end spectacularly: A bungle at the Home Office between 2010 and 2016 coming to light. Remember, power sharing in Northern Ireland collapsed not because of anything Arlene Foster did as First Minister, but because of the botched Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme she set up when she was Enterprise Minister. So is there an RHI-style scandal lurking in the Home Office that could topple Prime Minister May? In the case of someone who is so riskaverse that she takes Earl Grey tea bags to party conferences, I wouldn’t bet on it.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

How to enhance Britain’s representative democracy

Natascha Engel, Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons and Labour MP for North East Derbyshire

If the Brexit vote told us anything, it is that democracy in the UK is not in crisis. But it is changing. Power is, and has been for many years now, shifting from Parliament to people, and we, Members of Parliament, need to shift with it.

On the surface, Gina Miller’s Supreme Court victory against the Government, on who triggers Article 50, is a win for Parliament but it is significant that it was a voter, not an MP, who brought the case and won. Also important is that the case came in the wake of the country voting to leave the European Union in a referendum. Referendums are rare in the UK because, under our current system, the electorate votes once every five years to choose their representatives and, after this, has little influence over how MPs vote until the next General Election. Referendums happen when Parliament needs a steer from people. But when people voted to leave the EU, Parliament was put into a tricky position, as the vast majority of MPs (480) campaigned to remain in the EU, while only 159 voted to leave. In our representative form of democracy, Parliament is suddenly in danger of being not very representative at all. Edmund Burke once famously said: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” MPs have, increasingly, been listening to and acting on the opinions of their constituents. And MPs have been aware of the demand for a greater say in the day-to-day working of their representatives. Technology has helped a significant part of our electorate to access their MPs and ask for direct input into our (or their) democracy. The use of social media, greater attention to

casework and constituency activities, public consultations and surveys, and petitions (including the Government petitions website and the new petitions committee), have all been in response to our internet savvy constituents, who contact us via change. org, 38degrees, theyworkforyou.com or the Taxpayers’ Alliance. The increasing focus on meeting constituency demands naturally means less attention to Parliamentary duties, such as bill committees and debates. But there is one part of the Parliamentary system which works well, engages with people outside of Westminster and could be expanded and improved: Select Committees. At the moment, our select committees have around 11 members and scrutinise the work of entire departments. They meet weekly, run enquiries and produce detailed reports. Most importantly, they take evidence from experts, academics, users of public services, industry and members of the public. But only a minority of MPs are members of select committees and their remit is far too wide for proper scrutiny, especially when it comes to departmental expenditure. Occasionally, a select committee will travel outside Westminster to take evidence in the “real world” but, on the whole, they are Parliament-based and focused. Departmental select committees could be split into subject areas; so, for instance, Communities and Local Government could

have sub-committees - housing, planning and infrastructure, local government, waste management and so on - which would meet with other smaller, subject-based select committees from DEFRA, for example, for an enquiry on flooding. The committees would be encouraged to take evidence outside of Westminster, especially with campaign groups, for instance, on wind-farms, incinerators and HS2. Each department could have one finance committee that looks only at departmental expenditure and budgets, in order to support the over-worked Public Accounts Committee and provide far deeper and closer scrutiny of how taxpayers’ money is spent. Members on those more specific select committees could then form the pool from which bill committee membership is drawn to ensure that, line-by-line, scrutiny is carried out by specialists, rather than people who may not have any interest in a subject. It would mean that constituents with an interest in animal welfare or football governance, for example, would have a committee with which they could engage more actively and make Parliament more open to participation. There is a real appetite out there which Parliament could harness more constructively, to ensure that our representative democracy represents its people day in and day out, and not just once every five years. 07

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

NHS England is on its knees

Dr Philippa Whitford, Shadow SNP Westminster Group Leader for Health, a member of the Health Select Committee and Scottish National Party MP for Central Ayrshire

Despite Jeremy Hunt’s claims that NHS England was better prepared this winter than ever before, the last few weeks have demonstrated that the system is in meltdown. Perhaps spending some time in a busy A&E unit would show the Health Secretary the reality and would knock the platitudes out of him.

Winter is always a challenge for the NHS but, with a third of hospitals in England on alert and the tragedy of patients who died after being stuck on trolleys for 24-48 hours, this winter is unprecedented. The crisis did not come out of nowhere; indeed, the Secretary of State was warned that the system was struggling last summer, and the repeated mantra of £10 billion extra for the NHS has been utterly discredited. All four National Health Services face the profound challenges of increasing demand (due to older and more complex patients) and a lack of doctors, as well as tight finances. Yet, while NHS Scotland managed to treat 96.1 per cent of A&E patients within four hours last Christmas, many hospitals in England were only able to treat 50 – 60 per cent of patients within the target. That difference is a result of the destructive policy and funding decisions by successive Governments which have undermined NHS England’s capacity and resilience. The increased demand is not just because people are living longer (the point of medical care, after all); rather, it is because we are not ageing well. It is important to avoid preventable chronic diseases caused by lifestyle yet, bizarrely, the Conservative Government have cut funding to Public Health England, while the watered-down Obesity Strategy is a missed opportunity that will be regretted in the future. 08

The Secretary of State’s plan to train additional doctors is welcome but he has cut the funding to Health Education England required to train them and, unless he improves his relationship with junior doctors, more will leave the service. With many consultant and GP posts unfilled, he should abandon talk of spreading them even more thinly and work collaboratively with the profession - as has been the case in Scotland - to strengthen Out of Hours provision in key services such as A&E, maternity and radiology. NHS England has been damaged by political experiments, ranging from Labour’s disastrous Private Finance Initiative to the Health and Social Care Act. The latter has resulted in health services in England being put through a tendering process and often outsourced to private providers. If the local NHS hospital loses the contract, it becomes less financially viable, while the outsourced service is re-organised and often scaled back. As Trusts and services are competing financially, the English NHS has become much more fragmented and harder for patients or, indeed, GPs, to navigate at a time when integration and co-operation are essential to face the challenges of an ageing population. There has been no demonstration of any clinical benefit gained from that competitive healthcare market, and the Government has not even kept track of the additional administrative cost of the bidding and tendering process, estimated at £5 billion per year, which removes money from frontline services.

Such financial waste appears to have contributed to the dramatic collapse of Trust finances in recent years. Prior to the HSCA coming into effect in 2013, the NHS scraped through each year with about £500 million to spare, while, by last year, 80 per cent of Trusts were in the red, with the deficit reaching £2.45 billion. Despite the UK Government’s promise of no more “top-down” re-organisation (ironically echoing their mantra in 2010), the most recent suggestion is that NHS England should organise itself into 44 “Footprints” to develop Sustainability and Transformation Plans. The principle of returning to placebased planning of an integrated service for a whole community, as we have in Scotland with our geographic Health Boards, is sound but is being totally undermined by the execution. While the aim of STPs should be to integrate services to achieve better outcomes for patients, each has simply been given a fixed budgetary target for 2020 to work back from. Change costs money but the £2.1 billion set aside for NHS Transformation has already been sucked into covering £1.8 billion of the deficit, leaving an unrealistic £300 million to fund redesign. Many STPs are, therefore, proposing drastic cuts to acute hospital beds, A&E departments and community hospitals to, supposedly, free up funding to invest in community and primary care. That is misguided as the UK has already cut over half its beds since the 1980s and has

ADVERTORIAL

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

NHS England is on its knees

Dr Philippa Whitford, Shadow SNP Westminster Group Leader for Health, a member of the Health Select Committee and Scottish National Party MP for Central Ayrshire

“

UK has already cut over half its beds since the 1980s and has the lowest ratio of beds (and, indeed, doctors) per population in Europe

“

the lowest ratio of beds (and, indeed, doctors) per population in Europe. Removing further beds, or shutting A&E units as the first step, would cause many local health services to completely collapse. Additional primary and community services, such as step-up and step-down beds, must be expanded first and any change in hospital estates should be on the basis of developing clinical services in the most appropriate place. That may require building hospitals as much as closing them. While older patients will often require a little longer in hospital for treatment, drastic cuts to social care funding has resulted in many getting trapped in hospital even when they are ready, and, indeed, desperate, to return home. In Scotland, Joint Boards have been established between the NHS and Local Authorities to provide an integrated approach to the provision of social care and avoid bickering over who funds what. Whilst that is a recent development, it has already achieved a 9 per cent reduction in delayed discharges, compared to a rise of 30 per cent in England. For STPs to work, they need to be properly funded, have a statutory role and make sense geographically. They must have a shared budget to avoid financial competition and to enhance co-operation and integration between the NHS and social care. The outsourcing of services to private providers must be abandoned as this caused the fragmentation in the first place. There is no magic wand to create NHS sustainability but STPs could be the best chance for organisational stability in NHS England. They must, however, be shaped in consultation with the public and frontline staff to develop real patient-centered services, rather than Trojan horses. The public has consistently demonstrated how highly it values the NHS and this should be reflected in Government priorities. The recent crisis shows that NHS England is on its knees and urgent action is needed. Training extra doctors and preparing the NHS to serve an older population will take at least a decade but providing sufficient funding could stabilise NHS England in the short-term. This is a matter of political will!

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

Protecting England’s parks

Clive Betts, Chair of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and Labour MP for Shefﬁeld South East

With no legal obligation on local authorities to fund and maintain public parks, and with council budgets coming under increasing pressure, there are fears that Britain’s 27,000 parks could be under threat.

The Communities and Local Government Select Committee responded to those concerns by launching an inquiry into the future of parks last summer, and the resulting report, setting out our ﬁndings, recommendations and conclusions, is due to be published this February. We wanted to look at how parks should be supported now and in the future, which included exploring alternative management and funding models. The Committee was also keen to gauge the value that people place on open spaces and ﬁnd out who was using them and for what. The response to our call for evidence has been remarkable, and clearly demonstrates the strength of feeling among communities across the country towards parks. Parks are cherished community resources, and it is evident that people want to see them properly protected for many years to come. The Committee received nearly 400 submissions of written evidence, more than any other inquiry that we have conducted in this Parliament. The fact that a great many of those came from volunteer groups, who put in time and effort to maintain their local parks, reinforces just how much these amenities matter to the public. We received more than 13,000 responses to our survey, which we conducted online and face-to-face. The responses further enhanced our understanding of the issues, not least by providing us with a picture of how parks are

being used, how people travel to their local park, how often and what they do there. Roughly, nine out of ten people considered their local park to have a “very positive” impact on their community, while close to half visit their park two or three times every week. Our inquiry has also given a focal point to campaigners striving to protect parks. We received around 4,000 emails as part of an email campaign and, perhaps most strikingly, a 322,000-signature petition from the online campaigning organisation, 38 Degrees. Those signatories want to see the protection of parks written into law. We were pleased to welcome some of the petitioners to Westminster to present their petition in person and to answer questions from the Committee at one of our public evidence sessions about why they valued their local park. It was particularly compelling to hear their personal stories about why their local parks matter to them and their families.

The inquiry also managed to grab the attention of youngsters, with nearly 90 letters coming to the Committee from school children. We also saw good levels of social media interaction, namely on Twitter, where close to 1,000 messages were posted using the inquiries dedicated “MyParkMatters” hashtag. We were delighted to be able to showcase a few of the photos which people shared on the hashtag when we published a summary of the survey results. The Committee is extremely pleased that so many people have chosen to take part in our inquiry and to share their views with us. The more that people engage with our work, the more effectively we can assess the ways in which Government policy affects people from different backgrounds and communities across the country. We have listened carefully to all of the evidence which we have heard during our inquiry, which has helped to shape our recommendations to the Government on how to protect England’s parks.

To imagine every one of the 322,000 people who signed the petition having similar stories to tell is a powerful thought. We held four public evidence sessions, during which we also heard from representatives of local authorities, charities, organisations who are exploring different ways to manage and fund parks, and the Minister responsible for parks, among others. The Committee also visited Newcastle to see for ourselves the challenges parks are facing. 11

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

Stimulating economic growth and regeneration through better transport

Louise Ellman, Chair of the Transport Select Committee and Labour MP for Liverpool, Riverside

Good transport supports economic growth, connecting people with education, jobs, health facilities, leisure and shopping attractions, vital public services and wider society. And, as Sir Rod Eddington demonstrated 10 years ago, there is hard evidence to demonstrate that those linkages support a range of conditions necessary for productivity and growth, including business and labour market efﬁciency, investment and innovation. Unfortunately, local public transport is not good enough in many UK towns and cities. That is a symptom of years of underinvestment, complex transport governance and decision-making structures and a failure by successive governments to provide strategic direction. In many cases, local authorities have been unable to direct spending and make decisions in a way that suits their local area. Funding streams have been unnecessarily complex. At present, there are at least eight different transport infrastructure funding streams that councils can bid for from the Department for Transport, alone. There are also stark differences in spending between regions, with the transport spending gap between London and the North at £1,600 per person between 2016/17 and 2020/21. The focus in recent years has been addressing the complexity of governance and decision-making and placing control more directly in the hands of local transport authorities. It is now widely accepted that local decision-makers best understand both local circumstances and how transport can align with wider land-use and planning objectives. Current devolution schemes, fragmented as they are, should allow for more coordinated transport planning across modes, with the end goal of providing efﬁcient and integrated local transport networks with widely available information and modern features, including “Oysterstyle” smart or ticketless payment. 12

London has seen a transformation of transport since the Mayoralty and Transport for London were created. Areas such as Greater Manchester have also made significant progress in integrating transport systems. The extension of devolution deals to other regions, including Sheffield, West Yorkshire, Cornwall and Liverpool, is an important step toward achieving fullyintegrated systems. While devolution will be a very important step forward, it may not provide the solution for all regions. Those with more traditional governance structures may not be able to achieve as much as combined authorities with directly-elected mayors could. The recent Bus Services Bill, which is due for its second reading in the House of Commons, is further evidence of progress in putting local transport decision-making in the hands of local transport authorities. Deregulation of bus services has clearly not worked. The Transport Select Committee’s recent report broadly welcomed the Bill but recommended improvements. We welcomed the Government’s approach of giving local authorities the option of implementing new forms of partnership or franchising, based on what is most appropriate to local needs. The Bill should facilitate the integration of transport modes and give local authorities the power to introduce simpler and more integrated ticketing systems.

Most of us have waited for a late-running and overcrowded train or have been sat on a crowded bus, which has been stuck in peak hour traffic. There is evidence that congestion, often a symptom of poorly planned and delivered transport systems, is getting worse in many places, despite steady or falling traffic volumes. Transport congestion has substantial economic costs (last estimated, in 2009, at £11 billion in urban economies) and wider costs in terms of health and wellbeing. Recognising and unlocking the economic benefits of tackling that problem is absolutely vital. We have recently launched our “Urban Congestion” inquiry, which had its first oral evidence session this January. That inquiry aims to identify cost-effective and safe strategies for managing limited road space in towns and cities, minimising disruption to local communities and businesses, and keeping urban traffic flowing. It is an opportunity to recognise success and address the barriers which impede improvement.

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

A toolbox of incentives, freedoms and practical help to rehabilitate offenders

Sam Gyimah, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Prisons and Probation and Conservative MP for East Surrey

Prison governors are our partners in our plans for prison reform. We are giving them the tools – including extra staff where they are needed to improve safety – to tackle the violence, the drugs, the drones, and the phones. We will give them more power to run their prisons as they see ﬁt because we are determined to create prisons that are a safe and decent place to live and to work, to reform the lives of those inside. This government is going to take on the problems of Britain’s prisons and make them work as places of reform. Make no mistake: it is entirely right that when people commit a serious criminal offence, the state responds by taking away their liberty. People are in prison for a reason. It is right that they are punished. They have committed a crime and must pay a debt to society. We must keep the public safe and protect the victims of crime. But we do not want to see them going in and out of prison year after year. In and out, trapped in a cycle of reoffending with the underlying causes of their criminality left to fester. That helps no one. It only leads to more victims and more crime. Our plans for prison safety and reform – the blueprint for change to 2020 and beyond – as well as empowering governors, will deliver new facilities, more staff, and modern technology to improve regimes. Life for everyone in prison – staff and offenders, alike – must be made safer. The Secretary of State has pledged an extra £14 million for ten of our most troubled prisons to pay for more than 400 frontline staff to combat drugs and violence. New working practices will enable staff to spend more time supervising and supporting prisoners. Some of our other safety measures are already in place: more body-worn cameras, and drug testing across the prison estate. 14

Prisons should be places of purposeful activity and work. Offenders are, literally, a captive audience. A regime working well for staff and offenders can instill a work ethic they may never have known: one that acknowledges discipline, team work, and the need to deliver to a deadline. One of my priorities is to see more prisoners engaged in work and I am giving governors the tools and facilities to achieve this. Many governors are frustrated that they cannot get more men and women out on Release on Temporary Licence, taking the first steps to rejoin society, but with a safety net beneath them, as they walk the tightrope from prison. The Justice Secretary and I are looking at our ROTL procedures to see how effectively it is working in practice. We are giving governors control of their own budget; the scope to make money and reinvest it in prison facilities; the power to fire education providers and replace them with a more aspirational outfit that better understands what we are trying to achieve; and the opportunity to motivate offenders by tweaking the incentive and privileges scheme – by increasing family visits, for example. In short, a toolbox of incentives, freedoms and practical help for their mission to rehabilitate offenders. When offenders reach the end of their sentence, governors will be called to account for their journey through prison

and the milestones they have passed. Are the men changed characters? Are they better at reading, writing and maths? Keen to find work, enthusiastic about becoming a decent citizen who contributes positively to family and community? Are they, in short, more likely to steer clear of crime? It is too soon to judge governors on outcomes, but they deserve praise for the early pace they have set. I have seen for myself the scene at HMP Coldingley, where they are building a café and showroom to sell work done by the prisoners in the metal and print workshops. Every offender has a job in one of those workshops. Reform is the only way to break the miserable cycle of reoffending, and spare society from pain. We believe most people can reform. We believe prisons can help reform them. And we believe our prison governors are the right people to drive reform.

ADVERTORIAL

Open Letter:

To the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Dear Lord Chancellor,

Seize the opportunity to unlock magistrates’ full potential As you know, the Magistrates Association is the only independent charity representing Justices of the Peace in England and Wales. We give a voice to the men and women across England and Wales who give their time freely to deal with roughly 95% of all criminal cases. These unpaid, dedicated pillars of the community devote two million hours each year to the system, take up just 1% of HMCTS’ operating budget and have an appeal rate of less than 1% This is why we believe it is important that you, and your Ministry, seize the once in a generation opportunity to craft a far-reaching strategic vision for magistrates and the role they play. Late last year, the Commons’ Justice Select Committee offered you this opportunity via the most comprehensive inquiry into the role of the magistracy in living memory. Our evidence heavily inﬂuenced it. The report and recommendations, I regret to say, appear to be largely unheeded. MPs on the Committee were clear they listened to our concerns, including those on the pressing need for magistrates to be better consulted on reform to the system. After all, they are on the frontline. The Committee was also clear on the need to recruit more magistrates to increase the diversity of its make-up. Lack of funding is putting everincreasing strain on essential training, and the closure of courts at a breath-taking rate is squeezing the life out of the core principle of accessible justice. Those who suffer most of all from this punishing programme of closures are, of course, victims.

Malcolm Richardson JP National Chairman, Magistrates Association 28 Fitzroy Square London W1T 6DD magistrates-association.org.uk @MagsAssoc 020 7387 2353

There is literally an army of magistrates out there waiting to give their full potential to criminal justice. This means giving magistrates the proper tools to do the job and that includes broader sentencing powers for 12 months prison sentences. By relieving the pressure on the Crown Court this will not only save money, it will deliver swifter justice, especially for victims. You will note this is backed by the senior judiciary, the Select Committee, think-tanks and justice charities. Yet all of these recommendations have barely been acknowledged by your Ministry, or meaningfully responded to. As such, we believe a great opportunity risks being lost. We accept that change is necessary. That is why over 650 years the office of magistrate has adapted and moved with the times to become the central pillar of justice serving our communities. Yet the pace of change, including rampant digitalisation in the system, is damaging confidence. Current proposals risk removing human interaction altogether. This cannot be right. The threat to public confidence is clear. But it is not too late. As Lord Chancellor, you can seize opportunity to unlock magistrates’ full potential by engaging with the Select Committee’s recommendations. In doing so, we believe you can reassure the public we both exist to serve. Yours sincerely, Malcolm Richardson JP National Chairman, Magistrates Association

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

The criminal justice system is near to breaking point

Christina Rees, Shadow Justice Minister and Labour MP for Neath

It is now three years since criminal lawyers - barristers and solicitors, alike - ﬁrst took what amounted to strike action against the then Coalition Government’s cuts to criminal legal aid. The protests followed the then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s “Transforming Legal Aid” proposals to cut public funding to legal aid, in April 2013.

The plans affected a range of areas of law, not just crime. The response from lawyers, charities and grassroots organisations was unanimous in its criticism, with the law reform organisation Justice describing the paper as “rushed, ill-considered and unsupported by evidence.”

Shadow Justice Secretary, Richard Burgon, asked the Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald to conﬁrm as much. Unfortunately, a reply was not forthcoming. But in the weeks ahead, we will continue to push for that assurance. Most solicitors ﬁrms cannot withstand yet another slice of their fees disappearing.

The consultation period was, characteristically now for the Ministry of Justice, very short - just under two months. Yet, the reforms were to have huge implications for legal aid work in England and Wales, removing much of social welfare law entirely from the scope of eligibility for public funding - a measure that has been catastrophic for thousands of people.

The truth is that criminal legal aid lawyers are the poor relations of the law where earnings are concerned. There has been no increase in their fees for over 20 years. That remains a challenge to those from the poorest backgrounds who excel and want to enter the profession. Many accumulate huge debts at university and law school, with little hope of paying it back.

Initially, the Government wanted to introduce a model of price competitive tendering for criminal legal aid work. But after much opposition, and various legal challenging to the consultation, those proposals were dropped. Instead, the Government sought to cut solicitors’ fees by 17.5 per cent. An initial plan to cut fees paid for advocacy was later abandoned. And so it was that, during 2015, an initial 8.75 per cent cut was applied with another cut to follow in 2016.

And many junior lawyers ﬁnd making a living difﬁcult. I hear reports of some leaving for more lucrative and reliable forms of income before their careers have barely blossomed.

However, Chris Grayling, universally unpopular with the legal profession, was subsequently replaced by Michael Gove, who went on to delay a further cut of 8.75 per cent to April 2017. It is to be hoped now that the cut will never come. In a recent Westminster Hall debate on Access to Justice, Labour’s 16

Scarcity of resources is also affecting the prosecution of cases. The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for bringing most of the prosecutions in England and Wales. It has seen eye-watering sums cut from its budget in six years of Tory justice ministers. The real terms budget cut since 2010-11 is 24 per cent and its stafﬁng budget in 2015-16 was 40 per cent of what it was back then. That is 2,400 fewer staff. It is little wonder that in the last year, the Public Accounts Committee said that “the criminal justice system is close to breaking point.”

And during that time, of course, there have been a series of high proﬁle historic sex abuse cases which consume a great deal of resources. One eminent QC writing recently on the likely prosecutions to arise from a string of allegations concerning football coaches, wondered “whether the criminal justice system can cope with more and more such cases at a time when people and resources are already stretched to their limits.” One wonders what the public must think. The scale of the cuts to the CPS and legal aid risk bringing our system of justice into disrepute. During the phone hacking trial of 2014, one journalist wrote of the resources of the defence compared with the CPS: “We found ourselves watching the power of the private purse knocking six bells out of the underfunded public sector.” Justice should not be like that. The purpose of our criminal courts system is to see that the guilty are convicted and the innocent go free. But that task is made much harder when those so integral to it are deprived of the resources which they so desperately need.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

Pro-innovation policies can fuel a new industrial age for the UK

Alan Mak, Conservative MP for Havant

This January, world leaders gathered in Davos to hear about how radical scientiﬁc breakthroughs will impact every aspect of our lives. Those new disruptive technologies, dubbed the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), are characterised by their combination of artiﬁcial intelligence, hyper-connectivity and mass-automation.

That covers everything from driverless car, 3D printers and nanotechnology to smart sensors in fridges which will let you know when the milk has gone off, automatically adding a fresh pint to your shopping list. The topic was the top item on the agenda this year of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting, and global policymakers were warned to prepare now or face job losses and an economic slowdown in the future. Since that meeting, and since last year’s Forum which also focused on the 4IR, we have seen a steady stream of announcements relating to advancements in the field of 4IR technology – many of them British. According to the journal Science, one of the top ten breakthroughs of 2016 was when a team from the London-based Google DeepMind developed a computer which beat a human grandmaster in the complex ancient game of Go. That demonstration of machine-learning has practical uses, especially as we develop driverless technology; for instance, Amazon’s drone programme, which is being developed in the UK, recently made its first tentative steps towards airmail deliveries by serving its first customer. But we are merely at the tip of the iceberg, warned Klaus Schwab, the Founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF. “These technologies have only begun to show their full potential; in 2017, we will increasingly see what used to be science fiction become reality”, he wrote ahead of this year’s meeting, which again focused on preparing for the 4IR.

The avalanche of new developments means that politicians need to stay ahead of the curve, fostering the British spirit of innovation which has existed here since James Watt invented the steam engine in the 19th century. Importantly, our Government has moved quickly to try and harness the huge potential of the 4IR, with Chancellor Philip Hammond saying it is a “once-in-ageneration opportunity for Britain to cement its role as a leader in tech innovation.” That has been followed by the exciting publication of a modern Industrial Strategy. Our fast-moving approach is already paying dividends, with the recent news that ﬂagship tech ﬁrms such as Snapchat and Apple were expanding their international operations in this country. Our combination of a highly skilled workforce, as well as the most competitive corporation tax in the G20, is proving to be an irresistible draw. A number of other policies, including the Catapult network of regional innovation centres, have also been a great success. Those physical centres allow the very best UK businesses, scientists and engineers to work side by side, transforming high potential ideas into new products and services. We need more of them across the country, including at least one in every strategic region of the UK. Similarly, Innovate UK, the government’s innovation arm, can also be given a stronger

role to help foster more 4IR businesses. It is already doing an excellent job, helping to create 55,000 jobs since its launch in 2007. Better infrastructure will also help new firms to flourish, especially in areas where traditional manufacturing is in decline. The government has already committed to “targeted public investment in high value infrastructure”, and is spending £13 billion on transport improvements, including on high-speed trains as well as promising that 95 per cent of the country will have super-fast broadband by 2017. We have more work to do in order to make Britain the capital of the new 4IR world, but we do have a number of strategic advantages, including a trusted legal system, an advantageous time zone, the English language, highly respected universities and access to finance which put us in a strong position. Britain is in an exciting position to shape its own future in a post-Brexit environment and has a long history in adopting a proinnovation approach to business. From farming mechanisation and domestic laboursaving devices to the creation of the internet and the City’s Big Bang, we did not allow fears about the future to stunt our economic and social progress. With our strong track record so far of pro-innovation policies, we are now in poll position to lead the world in developing 4IR technologies. But we must not now allow fear of change to stifle our access to potential unrivalled growth. 17

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

Telford: At the heart of the Midlands Engine

Lucy Allan, Conservative MP for Telford

It is clear that the Midlands Engine is an exciting and prosperous new idea which has emerged just at the right time. We saw, last year, during the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the Government making a commitment to investing in the Midlands and setting out its strong ambition to make the area an engine for growth for the UK economy.

I believe that the Midlands should be and can be Britain’s engine for growth, and my constituency of Telford is a perfect example of this. Telford is the fastest growing town in the Midlands and has built a reputation for being a preferred location for manufacturing and advanced manufacturing. It is already home to several of the world’s most recognised car parts and automotive corporations and continues to see more inward investment in the area. Across all sectors, such as technology, manufacturing, engineering and electronics, Telford has proven itself to be a frontrunner and is the driving force which turns the wheels of the growth engine in the Midlands. Although, today, Telford is a major economic force in the West Midlands, like much of the region it has struggled in recent decades. In the 1960s, the blast furnaces were blown out. In the 1970s, the last collieries closed. It was hit by the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, with record unemployment, and again by the great recession of 2008-09. The solution has always been to think big, work hard and keep going. That attitude ensures that the town continues to overcome obstacles and find solutions to problems. Telford is an extraordinary and vibrant new town and has adapted, innovated and evolved to become a leader in cutting edge technology and advanced manufacturing. It has grown, and continues to grow, in the heart of Shropshire. It is expected that by 2025, its population will have 18

increased by a further 23 per cent. As the local population continues to grow, getting Telford better connected remains a major priority to ensure its continued contribution to the Midlands engine. That is why I was pleased to see the Chancellor allocate £5 million for a Birmingham rail hub which will boost not only Telford’s continued economic growth but that of the Midlands as a whole. It is important that investment into the Midlands benefits the towns surrounding the cities. As Telford continues to grow and evolve, inward international investment does the same. At the heart of the local growth engine in Telford is the T54 development park. Recently, a major Canadian owned manufacturing giant, Magna – Cosma, confirmed that it would be investing in a high tech car parts plant on this site. As Telford’s MP, I was pleased to help secure that contract by working with the Homes and Communities Agency. That project will be the largest automotive development in the West Midlands and will see the creation of 300 skilled local jobs. The facility is representative of Telford’s ability to attract new business and paves the way for further investment. Indeed, further proof is that Austrian company Polytec Group has become the latest company to submit plans to build a factory on the T54 business park, which could create another 240 jobs. That again demonstrates the value of our reputation as a global player for advanced manufacturing.

Telford is a major player in the Midlands and has the right resources for meeting needs of advanced high-tech development, but we must not forget about the hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses that are part of those manufacturing and engineering supply chains, who also play their part in powering the Midlands engine. So as we move together, towards change, as one engine, the values which Telford holds dear should be mirrored across the region and throughout the country. As Telford has done, we should embrace new opportunities and seek renewed optimism over fear. We should embrace the ability to press a reset button and to start again. That is what Telford has done over the years with high aspirations that have reached new markets, boosted growth and development, created highly skilled jobs and contributed to building an economy that works for everyone. Telford truly is a growth engine in its own right, and I am so proud to be its representative. The Midlands Engine is developing and growing and anyone who wants evidence of this need look no further than Telford.

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

Apprenticeships are crucial to boosting the British brand

Kelly Tolhurst, a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee and Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood

Britain has a long and proud history of using specialist skills to create the very best products across our famed business sectors. That is no different in my own constituency of Rochester and Strood which is home to once major industries, such as ship-building in Chatham Dockyard and cement-making in Strood, both of which were renowned as being of excellent quality during their day.

Whether it was a formal apprenticeship or the informal shadowing of technicians and craftsmen, those industries continued at high standards because of the quality of knowledge and teaching offered for those entering the workforce. The mid-1960s to the mid-1970s saw the greatest levels of apprentice recruitment nationally, coinciding with some of our more recent industrial booms, and the value of apprenticeships was revitalised again in 1994. The apprenticeship system of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s provided the necessary preparation for young people to qualify in a number of proﬁtable sectors. Those included craft trade (machinist, toolmaker, plumber, welder and mechanic, for example), or technician (quality inspector, draughtsman, planner and programmer, for instance), or technician engineer and even enabled a path to full chartered engineer registration (mechanical, electrical, aeronautical, chemical and manufacturing, for example). Although we have had our economic ups and downs since, apprenticeships have been key to the successful performance of those particular industries, helping to keep our economy aﬂoat during rocky times. Yet, there has been an unfortunate perception – assisted by past Labour policymaking – that apprenticeships are primarily used as last resort for boys or young men from less privileged backgrounds. There has become an unfair expectation that 20

success for a child is built upon going to university, despite how up to 30 per cent of university students will either not complete their degrees or will achieve a degree that will not offer them the graduate-level jobs or earnings anticipated. Sadly, the bill for that falls firmly at the feet of the taxpayer. However, by changing mentalities around apprenticeships we can also increase their prestige and quality which, in turn, attracts a wider variety of applicant and opportunity. Surprising to many is the fact that all those wanting to be lawyers, accountants, architects and doctors have to serve a formal apprenticeship. Moreover, we also have a need for adults to have better access to skilled jobs, should they change career or want to reach the next level within their profession. At the end of the day, it is down to personal choice and ensuring an individual’s options are both clear and informed. I left school following my GCSEs at the age of 16 and worked my way up through roles which developed my trade and business skills, and by my early 20s I was leading a department within a mediumsized multinational. Looking at the intake of apprentices at BAE Systems and the students of Medway UTC in my constituency, I am positive that within a few years of hard work they will find similar opportunities to benefit both themselves and the UK’s productivity as quickly as many university graduates do, no matter of background.

By committing to spend £3.5 billion to fund three million quality apprenticeships by 2020, we can provide better opportunities for a huge number of young people and adults to learn the skills which will help better their lives and drive our economy. Similarly, by creating the right business policy environment for apprentices and business to ﬂourish hand-in-hand is also vitally important. While many organisations like BAE Systems, National Rail and CGI already do a great deal to support apprenticeships, the Government’s introduction of the apprenticeship levy on large businesses from April 2017 will give a great investment boost to our specialist skills economy. Skills and training are crucial to our economy as more skilled people in work means ﬁrstly cutting the cost of social failure, lowering levels of tax on the individual and increasing our competitiveness. Secondly, it gives everyone the chance to defy the circumstances of their birth, climb the ladder and change their lives for the better. Ultimately, apprenticeships will drive innovation and industry and have come at a great time as we prepare to leave the European Union and boost the British brand at home and abroad.

ADVERTORIAL

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

The need for eye tests throughout a person’s life

Nusrat Ghani, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eye Health and Visual Impairment and Conservative MP for Wealden

Eye health is an issue that is very close to my heart. I am well aware, from having a family member who has experienced sight loss, of the emotional and complex daily challenges that face people with impaired sight, and I am determined to improve the status quo for them and their loved ones.

In my role as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Eye Health and Visual Impairment, I have been fortunate enough to work closely with blind and visually impaired people - and charities and professionals supporting them - to devise strategies for improving their quality of life through policy. One of the most important projects the APPG has been working on relates to Certificates of Visual Impairment, which are granted to individuals by eye specialists according to the severity of their impairment. Having backed the Royal National Institute for the Blind’s campaign to ensure long-term sustainable funding for the collection and analysis of the epidemiological data collected through Certificates of Visual Impairment, we successfully secured twelve months of funding from the Department of Health. However, we still want to go further than that and secure permanent funding for CVIs once that period ends – we will continue to work for that change. We have had brilliant support from ministers in various departments on the issues, and the value of an APPG has been proved by our ability to meet with them and raise issues. So, for example, having raised concerns with ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions about employment support offered to those with visual impairment, DWP entered into a learning partnership with RNIB and its 22

Trainee Grad Scheme, in order to improve their own provisions for visually impaired people looking for work. Looking to the future, the focus of the APPG work over the next few months will be transportation, specifically driving and sight loss. Accessible transportation is pivotal to ensuring a good quality of life for people with sight loss and is an issue that is often raised by campaigners. We have made significant progress with that aspect, particularly in London with an increase in the number of “talking buses”, the welcoming of assistance dogs on transport services and the widespread use of tactile paving. However, more needs to be done to make transport safe and accessible for people with impaired vision. We will also shortly be launching an inquiry into delays and cancellations of follow-up appointments for patients who have conditions that, if not identified or treated early enough, can lead to sight loss. It is concerning that people may be losing their sight because they are not receiving the treatment which they need in a clinically appropriate timeframe. Eye tests should begin in childhood and continue regularly throughout adolescence and adult life in order to ensure potential issues are detected and treated as early as possible. Eye tests can also indicate things about a person’s general health, so it is important that people see them as an essential medical check-up.

Aside from securing policy changes, it is also our job, as an APPG, to raise awareness of the issues affecting those with sight loss. I had the pleasure of hosting a parliamentary reception on behalf of the APPG, RNIB and Blind Veterans UK. It provided a platform for people who had lost their sight to give personal accounts of their experiences to MPs and Lords, and allowed me to encourage my colleagues to engage with their local hospitals on the subject of eye health and to lead discussions about services for people affected in their constituencies. Ophthalmologists and their teams have found themselves under increasing pressure due to our ageing population, as well as the risks related to diabetes and obesity and, as such, we in Parliament must find ways to better support them and their patients. One such method of support which was recommended is the wider provision of “sight loss advisors”, who can make a real difference to people experiencing visual impairment. I look forward to continuing my work in raising those issues in Parliament, Whitehall and beyond, which I would not be able to do without the brilliant work of RNIB.

ADVERTORIAL

Additional eyecare services could be delivered by high street opticians The provision of eyecare in the UK is mainly delivered by high street opticians; however, when presented with an ‘eye emergency’, not everyone is sure who to turn to. Take the example of toothache: who can help? The answer is simple: your dentist. If that same person has an eye-related emergency: who do they turn to? From my experience, it is their GP, local pharmacist, A&E department or sometimes us i.e. their local optician. Optical practices throughout the UK have highly skilled opticians and optometrists capable of delivering community-based eyecare, which is convenient, of the highest quality and helps ease the burden on hospital eye departments and ophthalmologists, who really should be seeing more complex eye health issues, rather than routine cases which could easily be managed in the community. Indeed, where I practice in Scotland, we have a nationally commissioned eye health service whereby we can see, treat and manage a number of eye health conditions in practice without referral to secondary care. One study conducted in Scotland by health economists¹ has highlighted a considerable reduction in costs: £45, £37 or £21.50 (age and symptoms based) for each consultation in community practice versus £120 in a hospital eye department. Similar schemes exist in the other devolved nations. All opticians and optometrists are registered with the General Optical Council and have core competences in triage of all eye health emergencies, and have a duty to refer to a hospital A&E department for urgent sight threatening conditions, or a routine referral for conditions requiring specialist ophthalmology treatment or investigation. Many optometrists obtain a higher qualification to become independent prescribers which allows the prescribing of certain prescription-only medicines in the treatment of eye conditions, while many opticians gain qualifications in contact lens fitting, which means that they become specialists in the anterior eye. This makes them ideally placed, along with colleagues in optometry, to deliver Minor Eye Conditions Services (MECS) with appropriate training and accreditation.

Fiona Anderson BSc (Hons) FBDO R SMC(Tech) President, Association of British Dispensing Opticians

Taking a wider perspective, local opticians could become centres for healthy living as has been seen in Dudley, West Midlands. The Dudley Local Optical Committee (LOC) introduced the concept of the “Healthy Living Optician”². In addition to eye examinations and everything you would expect from your optician, they introduced help and advice on smoking cessation, weight management, alcohol and NHS health checks e.g. cholesterol, blood pressure and glucose checks. These healthy living opticians are ideally placed to be able to give pointers to people seeking help on such matters, especially if they would not consult other healthcare professionals. The advice offered is convenient, relevant and accessible and contributes to an increased awareness of not only eye health, but better health in general. It is ABDO’s view that opticians have a huge role to play in not only eye health but in the overall health of our nation and is therefore actively advocating this to its members by encouraging them to become involved in local schemes and supporting them through the tendering process. Being part of local enhanced eyecare services is essential to the health and wellbeing of the population as a whole – the beneﬁts of quality, local, accessible eyecare services, and the availability of routine regular eye examinations, is something that the profession is embracing with enthusiasm and can only be good for the nation.

References ¹ http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/919/0102212.pdf ² www.dudleyhlo.co.uk

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

Tackling the stigma surrounding HIV

Nicola Blackwood, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health and Innovation and Conservative MP for Oxford West and Abingdon

HIV remains a signiﬁcant issue in communities right across England. Advancements in treatment in recent decades thankfully mean that people affected by the disease can still live life to the full. However, that does not mean work on prevention is not as important today as it has ever been.

Since I took on the role of Public Health minister last August, the debate about how we tackle the spread of HIV, and how we support those who already have the disease, has been high on the agenda. I would like to give my assurance that preventing the spread of HIV remains a Government priority. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress against the UN’s challenging 90:90:90 targets. They stipulate that 90 per cent of people living with HIV should be diagnosed, 90 per cent of those diagnosed should receive treatment, and 90 per cent of those treated should be virally suppressed by 2020.

infection – a rate of 13.5 per cent. Of those who were diagnosed with HIV in 2015 (6,095 in total), 39 per cent were diagnosed late, which can lead to poorer health outcomes. That is clearly unacceptable. But we have made progress there, too. In 2010, the proportion of undiagnosed HIV cases stood at 25 per cent. In just five years, we have almost halved that number. For late diagnosis, the rate has dropped from 50 to 39 per cent in the same timeframe.

We have already met two of those objectives, with 96 per cent of those diagnosed receiving anti-retroviral treatments and 95 per cent of those treated virally suppressed. But, as I told people who attended the excellent Terence Higgins Trust event on Worlds Aids Day, I am very aware that more work is needed.

I am well aware that we cannot be complacent. Public Health England and local authorities are improving access to testing and HIV home-sampling kits so we can continue to diagnose HIV early and offer people the fullest life possible. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has produced new guidelines to support further work in that area.

I want to explore what more GPs can do to help us improve the HIV diagnosis, focusing on areas of high prevalence. We need to better educate on the importance of safe sex to reduce spread and drive up standards of care. In particular, I want to explore how we can use advancements in technology and innovation to make care affordable and effective.

Last December, PHE and NHS England announced a wide-reaching trial of new anti-retroviral drugs for the prevention of HIV, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis. Over three years, at least 10,000 individuals will take part in the clinical trial of the drug, which can prevent HIV infections and onward transmission to partners.

Let us look at the picture which we are facing. Latest estimates suggest that just over 100,000 people in the UK have HIV, of which roughly 13,500 are living with an undiagnosed

Up to £10 million has been set aside to fund the trial and, if successful, this will pave the way for a full rollout of what has been termed as a “game changer”.

Charities, too, play a massive part in tackling the impact of HIV in England and supporting those with the disease. Many are using innovative approaches, with government funding in many cases, to make a real difference to tackling HIV and the lives of people living with HIV. So, for example, the Martin Fisher Foundation is distributing HIV self-test kits, while Addaction is helping those who have Chemsex to remain safe. Furthermore, KwaAfrica has used comedy to tackle stigma and late diagnosis in Black African communities, while Naz, a BAMEfocused HIV charity, is raising awareness of issues through a web drama series. Those examples highlight how we can tackle these issues differently and reach a wider audience. Importantly, we will also be evaluating their impact. We have made some important strides in the last year, but I will continue to make sure we do all we can to improve our services in areas of high prevalence in particular and tackle the stigma that still exists around the disease.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

The enduring menace of malaria

Jeremy Lefroy, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases and Conservative MP for Stafford

Deaths from malaria have come down by 62 per cent over the term of the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015), and 29 per cent between 2010 and 2015. Incidence of malaria has declined by 41 per cent and 21 per cent in the same periods. Since 2000, 17 countries have seen malaria eliminated, and it is estimated that 6.4 million deaths from malaria have been prevented.

That has been achieved because the global community and the World Health Organisation again started taking malaria seriously in the late 1990s and have cooperated intensely since then. Funding increased from less than $100 million per annum in 2000 to $2,900 million in 2015. Of that, the UK contributed 16 per cent, second only to the US which provided 35 per cent. Investment in tackling malaria is a clear example of the importance of the UK’s development work, which has tangible results. It saves lives and improves the life chances of millions every year. But there is a great deal more to do to achieve the aim of the WHO’s global strategy for malaria by 2030. And that is: to reduce the rates of malaria incidence and mortality by 90 per cent from current (2015) levels; to eliminate malaria from a further 35 countries; and to prevent malaria from becoming re-established in any country which has been declared malaria free. If the aim is achieved, it will also mean that part of target 3.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals - to end the epidemics of malaria, HIV/AIDS, TB and the Neglected Tropical Diseases - will have been met. Analysis shows that the main tools for the reduction in malaria incidence and mortality since 2000 have been greatly increased availability and use of insecticide-treated bed nets; better and more effective anti-malarial drugs,

especially the combination therapies based on artemisinin (ACTs); and more indoor spraying against mosquitoes. The development of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has also been critical in ensuring that cases are diagnosed earlier and hence drugs used more effectively. The seriousness with which most countries with endemic malaria have taken tackling the disease has also been important. They see that they now have the tools to beat malaria, and not just to try and manage it. They also see how the reduction in the malaria burden has given their health systems the chance to improve and extend the range of health services which they can offer to their people. We are now seeing challenges to the effectiveness of the insecticides and antimalarial drugs. Mosquitoes in certain areas are developing resistance to insecticides, while ACTs - the most effective class of drugs - are becoming less effective against the malaria parasite in the Mekong Delta region. It is from that area that resistance to previous drugs, such as chloroquine, has spread, particularly to sub-Sahara Africa, which is why the situation is taken so seriously. So there is a considerable amount of research going on into new malaria drugs and insecticides. In addition, the first malaria vaccine - GSK’s RTS,S - has been approved by the WHO for piloting in three parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Other vaccines are also in development. We

are also seeing more work being done to tackle malaria in areas which are harder to reach, such as the Sahel where seasonal malaria is prevented through mass drug administration. The progress made in tackling malaria since 2000 has been one of unprecedented advance. It was a deadly, or at least debilitating, disease, which was feared by hundreds of millions of people around the world. It remains that in certain parts of some countries, however. But for many people, it has either become a thing of the past, or a disease which can be rapidly diagnosed and effectively treated. However, we run the risk of thinking that the problem is largely solved. It is not and the malaria parasite takes advantage of any slackening in the efforts made to beat it. Even now, we need at least to double the amount spent on malaria to reach the WHO’s 2030 targets. Much of that should come from countries where malaria is endemic, but there is still a need to increase investment by wealthy countries.

Declaration of interests: The author is a member of the boards of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Innovative Vector Control Consortium. 25

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

What is the science regarding diesel emissions?

Robert Flello, a member of the Transport Select Committee and Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent South

There is a new villain in town, and it goes by the name of diesel. We are told that diesel is deadly, rotten to its chemical core. Worse still, diesel used to be our friend but now it has betrayed us.

Remember when we were told that diesel was far cleaner for the environment than petrol? Remember when we were told that diesel was better for us because we could go so much further on so much less of it? Of course, anyone who uses diesel is stained with its wickedness. Car drivers who bought diesel vehicles, in good faith, are now mass poisoners who should be ashamed of themselves. Manufacturers who produce diesel vehicles are like the Ernst Stavro Blofeldts of the motoring world, stroking their pristine white cats and smiling whilst asthma sufferers choke, not to mention the faking of emissions tests by some car makers. As for lorry and bus drivers, how can they look themselves in the eye in their smut-stained mirrors? However, before we start burning effigies of Rudolf Diesel and haranguing in the street drivers of vehicles powered by the engine he is credited with inventing, we ought to remember how we arrived here. In the 1990s, drivers were roundly encouraged to opt for diesel vehicles because of their lower carbon dioxide emissions. In 2001, the government reorganised excise duty (car tax) to recognise that fact, charging less for cars which produced lower levels of CO2. Today, a third of vehicles on Britain’s roads run on diesel, including, of course, almost all of the lorries and many of the vans which are so so vital to our logistics sector. 26

There seems to be an emerging consensus that diesel should be demonised en route to an all-out ban. But how practical is that? If everyone had to replace their diesel motors over a period of time, how much more pollution would be caused by the production of so many new vehicles? Certainly it would be a boost for the car industry but it would also mean overall consumption of petrol would grow massively, with all the attendant cost and environmental implications. Further to that, if drivers are forced to replace their diesel cars, who is going to compensate them for purchases made in good faith? What is more, how dirty is diesel anyway? A quick Google search of that, or similar questions, will produce a variety of interpretations, running from miraculously pure and safe, all the way to instantly lethal. How catastrophic would the increase in CO2 emissions be if everyone reverted to petrol? Perhaps the biggest problem lies with HGVs. Running big trucks on petrol is ruinously expensive and environmentally disastrous. On a long haul, the mileage achieved by a diesel-driven machine is markedly better than a petrol equivalent. Diesel engines produce much higher torque at lower revolutions than their petrol equivalents, and the engines, themselves, last considerably longer as do the exhaust systems, saving greatly on cost but also in terms of the environmental damage caused by new manufacture. Perhaps most crucially of all, where are the new fuels ready to take up the strain in place of “dirty diesel”?

In short, we cannot get too far ahead of ourselves in seeking to consign diesel to our local hazardous waste recycling centre. Removing and replacing it is going to take time, and we must be sure that the science is right before we go leaping ahead with alternatives. Not many people were saying, sixteen years ago, that government should not incentivise diesel drivers through taxation. Let us not rush into another fuel faux pas, in case we damage or destroy yet more lives in the process, not to mention a big chunk of our vital transport industries.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

A refreshingly new approach to British Foreign Policy

John Baron, a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and Conservative MP for Basildon and Billericay

Theresa May’s speech to Republican Congressmen not only recognised the error of our recent interventions, but also suggested a more pragmatic approach to our foreign policy.

Liberal intervention was a concept given great prominence by Tony Blair’s 1999 speech in Chicago. That approach of altruistically using the military instrument to further humanitarian goals, greatly informed his premiership, was highly inﬂuential over Presidents Clinton and Bush, and was strongly endorsed by David Cameron as Prime Minister. As a consistent critic of our foreign interventions over the 15 years I have been an MP – I opposed and voted against military action in Iraq, Helmand, Libya and Syria – I was therefore pleased to hear Theresa May’s remarks in Philadelphia, in which she said that there must be “no return to the failed policies of the past”. Our adherence to the doctrine of liberal intervention has not served us well; rather, it resulted in us becoming bogged down in costly and questionable military operations across the Middle East, Afghanistan and Libya. Perhaps most importantly, liberal intervention has inevitably failed to provide the intended improvement for the local populations; indeed, in all cases, the instability caused by our interventions has fuelled conﬂict, rather than resolving it. In previously secure Iraq and Libya, intervention gave rise to vicious civil wars, with settled minorities, such as the Iraqi Christians, suffering from terrible sectarian violence, their centuries-old communities scattered to the winds. Even Tony Blair has had to admit that there were “elements of truth” to the assertion that emergence of Daesh was linked to the 2003 invasion.

For Britain, it is concerning that we have been slow to learn the lessons of our successive interventions. That is linked to the overall underinvestment in our foreign policy-making process. Successive Governments have reduced the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Ofﬁce, resulting in the cumulative loss of essential skills, institutional memory and deep country knowhow, as experts leave and are not replaced. During the Arab Spring, the FCO found itself short of Arabic speakers, whilst our muddled response to the Russian annexation of Crimea was not helped by the fact there was no inhouse area expert at the time. It is no coincidence that Parliament has become substantially more questioning of our foreign policy in recent years. Mindful of the experience of Iraq, MPs have raised the bar when it comes to intervention, as was strikingly seen during the debate on, and vote against, military action in Syria in the summer of 2013. That was one of Parliament’s ﬁnest hours of recent times. Two years later, and the Government had, indeed, realised that the greater threat came from Daesh, and not from President Assad.

Western distractions in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa, and our consequent loss of confidence in using the military instrument, have not gone unnoticed – nor has the tendency amongst western nations to steadily reduce their military budgets, even as other countries, who are not necessarily friendly to the West, have significantly increased their defence spending and capabilities. For all of those reasons, we should welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has chosen to re-tune our foreign policy. There will always be scope to intervene when necessary, and it would be wrong to interpret her words as stepping back from the global stage. However, the belief that western nations could create fully-fledged democracies through force of arms has had its day. Instead, a more pragmatic and realistic way of going about foreign affairs is required, coupled with increased investment in our policy-making apparatus. If the Prime Minister manages that, then Britain can truly complement the United States as its greatest ally.

There is also a danger that our foreign policy misadventures since 2001 blinded us to the potentially greater danger posed by hostile nation states, which never went away. No one can deny that President Putin caught the West napping when he sent his forces into Eastern Ukraine, whilst the Chinese Government has been steadily building up a sizeable military presence in the South China Sea. 27

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

White working-class boys: The vulnerable group in UK schools

William Wragg, a member of the Education Select Committee and Conservative MP for Hazel Grove

As a member of the Education Select Committee and a former primary school teacher, I have heard evidence and seen ﬁrst-hand that boys are underachieving through school, compared to their female peers.

Last year, both Kings College London and Save the Children published separate reports highlighting the gender gap in attainment in our education system. King’s College London found that white, working-class boys are less likely, than anybody else in Britain, to go to university, and that some white working class boys feel forced to conceal their identity in order to navigate the world of Higher Education. I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Theresa May describing that issue as a “burning injustice” and a “difficult truth” - these words must now be followed with action. Save the Children’s report “The Lost Boys” highlighted the potentially devastating and lifelong consequences for boys in England who start school significantly trailing girls in basic early language skills. It found boys are nearly twice as likely as girls to have fallen behind by the time they start school, and boys in poverty are trailing the most, with a staggering 40 per cent falling behind. Being behind on the first day of school is often an indicator that those boys will stay behind, potentially for life. Many struggle to catch up, and, in the longer term, struggling in the early years damages their life chances, employment prospects and health outcomes. A large part of achievement in adulthood is to do with a child’s early chances in life. With the recent educational focus on grammar schools, let us not forget that, educationally, success or failure can be determined much earlier than the age of 11. If a child falls behind by the age of five, their attainment in school is likely to be poor, and a measure 28

of this is the expected standards of language and communication skills. I was saddened to hear in my own constituency of Hazel Grove that 27 per cent of boys failed to meet those standards. That means they started school struggling to speak in full sentences, fully engage with their peers, and follow even simple instructions from their teachers. Both reports emphasised the critical role that parents, the home environment and quality of nursery education play in encouraging boys to be ready to learn at school. There are a number of barriers for boys, as they are less likely to participate in story-telling and nursery rhymes, which develop their language skills as well as issues of self-confidence, motivation and concentration. However, the quality of teaching can make a huge difference to overcoming those barriers. Good quality early years education can close the early education gender gap, giving both boys and girls equal opportunity to fulfil their potential. Early Years Teachers ensure that both boys and girls participate equally in early reading and play-related activities, which develop their skills and keep them interested in books, reading, talking and learning. Eighty-six per cent of early years providers are currently rated good or outstanding by Ofsted but we cannot afford to be complacent. Only two in five private, voluntary and independent nurseries currently employ an Early Years Teacher. The Government, therefore, needs to support the development of a well-qualified nursery workforce, with a

qualiﬁed early years teacher in every nursery, not just in 40 per cent of nurseries - and starting, ﬁrst of all, in areas which have the largest numbers of poor children. Under this Government, great strides have been made in equalities in the adult world. There has been welcome progress on closing the gender pay gap, seeing more women in senior positions in business, and raising representation of black and ethnic minorities in both education and business. However, at the same time, we risk leaving some groups behind, and white boys from poorer backgrounds are one of these. What is needed now is a co-ordinated effort by the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, local authorities, nursery providers, school leaders and parents to raise the attainment of that group by boosting quality early education, in order to make sure that all children, but particularly working-class boys who we are failing by the current system, have the critical language skills to act as a foundation for not just their schooling, but for life-long success.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

housing can bring graduates to North East England

Helen Goodman, Labour MP for Bishop Auckland

The North is struggling to attract and retain graduate workers, with 310,000 highly qualified British resident workers having left the region over the last decade. Many young people come to the region to study in our first class universities but, on graduation, they leave to find work elsewhere. Homes for the North recently assessed that in the North East, where my constituency is, there is the largest deficit of graduates in England. Their report states that 285,853 more highly qualified individuals would be needed to close that deficit. The North East comes last for its share of graduate employment locations in England for those who have graduated three or more years ago, which stood at under 5 per cent in 2014. The need for highly qualified workers in the region will probably increase if immigration is dramatically reduced after Brexit, as promised by the Prime Minister. That is not surprising because the UK’s economy is dangerously London-centric. Regional differences are larger in the UK than anywhere in Europe. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the economic output, per head, in 2015 was £43,629 for London and £18,927 for the North East. The Government went someway to acknowledging that and the lagging of economic growth and impact in the North when they introduced their Northern Powerhouse initiative. However, they have, so far, failed to offer anything significant for the North East through the policy. A deficit of highly skilled workers constrains a local economy’s growth and reduces variety of economic activity. That is not to undervalue the extremely important role traditional industry in the region plays; however, without a variety of skills and economic activity, the North East risks become less attractive for investment by businesses.

Whilst the availability of jobs in a region is, of course, important, housingbased policies can offer something more long-term as an incentive for graduates. Additionally, the success of that incentive would, in turn, encourage further job creation as the region becomes more attractive. There are several ways that can be achieved. In a recent ComRes survey, 50 per cent of graduates said the cost of housing was one of the top three most important factors in choosing where to live if they were relocating. So the North East ought to score highly as it offers a much more realistic prospect of affordable rent and home ownership for graduates in the North East than London. We need a housing policy for the country as a whole - with incentives to build in all regions. We do not want just new estates though; a focus on placemaking, using historic assets and with leisure and transport links, is what is needed. Further to that, employers have a role to play. Homes for the North have also recommended that Jobs Plus strategies, which combine employment prospects with other attractions like high quality housing, are introduced by the Government as part of the Industrial Strategy to tackle this issue in the North East, as well as the rest of the North.

cent of graduates who work in the region remain there three years after originally working in the region. Universities, businesses and housing providers could bring that about by working together to provide tailored employment and housing schemes for students taking placement years, and ensuring graduate schemes like the Government Civil Service Fast Stream include North East placements for a proportion of those on the scheme. Using housing to attract graduates could create long-term incentives, capitalising on the low housing costs of the region. That is not to say that housing, alone, will solve the entire problem of what has been described as a “brain drain” in the North. However, it is certainly a policy that the Government and Local Authorities should seriously consider, as part of a wider strategy, to ensure that the North and the North East becomes the thriving alternative “powerhouse” to London that it has the potential to be.

Notably, once graduates have chosen to work in the North East, they are highly likely to remain in the area: nearly 80 per 29

politics ﬁrst | Corridors

Resolution 2334 presents an opportunity for both Israel and Palestine

Dr Paul Monaghan, Scottish National Party MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

A cynic might suggest that the 7,853rd meeting of the United Nations Security Council was unusual for being significant. It was certainly an important meeting for both Israel and Palestine. Welcomed and condemned in equal measure, the meeting produced Resolution 2334 that has provoked a great deal of interest, encouraged the people of Palestine and alarmed the people of Israel. In brief, the Resolution reaffirms the duties imposed upon Israel, as an occupying power, to abide by its international legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilian populations, and condemns all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which has been occupied continuously since 1967. The Resolution expresses “grave concern” that the ongoing development of Israeli settlement activities is dangerously imperilling the viability of the two state solution that so many people, on both sides of the conflict, are desperate to achieve. In approving the Resolution, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu described the Security Council’s behaviour as “shameful”. He also denounced President Obama’s decision to abstain in the vote, and instructed his ambassadors in both New Zealand and Senegal to “return to Israel for consultations”. Mr Netanyahu also cancelled a scheduled visit from the Ukrainian Prime Minister to Jerusalem and ordered that financial contributions to some United Nations institutions be blocked. In practice, however, a different perspective perhaps highlights that the Resolution creates a series of opportunities for Israel. Perhaps the most significant among those opportunities is the fact that the Resolution, in effect, both reaffirms legitimacy to the existence of Israel and delivers it with a political raison d’etre to dissolve the illegal West Bank settlements. That is important because the Israeli communities living in the occupied 30

territories are now likely to be exposed to significant scrutiny, given that they are now the subject of a United Nations Security Council Resolution and international law. Indeed, the Resolution could now enable Mr Netanyahu to initiate a serious dialogue with the Palestinian Authority. Israel could use Resolution 2334 to establish the necessary conditions to negotiate an internationally-backed two-state solution for both peoples - an objective that the international community supports. Elsewhere, the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, has declared that 2017 would be “the year of the independent Palestinian state”. Indeed, President Abbas has hailed the resolution as a diplomatic victory, saying that, “in recent days, we were given an unprecedented decision regarding this issue.” The Palestinians stand ready to work with Mr Netanyahu and the Israeli Government to build the two-state accord that could, finally, bring stability to the region, and President Abbas is ready to talk. The Palestinian Authority wants control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the Six day War of 1967, to establish their independent Palestinian state. Mr Netanyahu has told The Times of Israel that he, too, seeks a two-state solution and is ready to negotiate without preconditions. All of which holds promise. However, there are other obvious benefits of peace for both Mr Netanyahu and Israel. Anyone who has visited Israel and Palestine cannot fail to observe the economic potential of both peoples. A world leading IT

sector, thriving universities, tourist potential, an intelligent youth, and effervescent, diverse communities, highlight just some of the economic opportunities. However, holding the economy of the region back is the serious underemployment of the Palestinian people and the vast expense incurred in segregating the two peoples who should be living in two successful states. Removing that economic drag would unequivocally beneﬁt Israel, and Resolution 2334 could facilitate this outcome. In such a scenario, Israel might become one of the world’s leading economies, sustaining a unique democracy in the eastern Mediterranean. It would also lift a weight off the Palestinian people and allow them to prosper. All of which brings to mind the words of Jawaharlal Nehru, ﬁrst Prime Minister of India and a driving force in Indian politics before and after his country’s independence. Prime Minister Nehru’s wisdom was evidenced in his explanation of peace having nothing to do with the “relationship of nations” nor “merely the absence of war”, but by “a state of mind”. Here then, perhaps, is the challenge enshrined in Resolution 2334. How should Mr Netanyahu and Dr Abbas harness the support of other countries to move beyond national relationships, in order to create the state of mind necessary to build the foundations of two states for two peoples? Whatever the answer, Resolution 2334 creates the opportunity to develop a shift in thinking, and the whole world must stand ready to assist.

politics ﬁrst | Spotlight

where next for the uk economy?

Peter Dowd Shadow Financial Secretary and Labour MP for Bootle

Even in an economic landscape recognised as being undulatingly serene, it would, nonetheless, be difficult to predict what may lay in wait over the brow. In the current tumultuous climate, it is only the brave, the arrogant or the pathologically optimistic or pessimistic who would predict where next for the UK economy, with any degree of precision. However, that does not preclude those of us in positions of responsibility from putting in our tuppence worth. Indeed, it is almost obligatory but the context must come first. Alas, I am afraid that the B word hangs like a shadow over my observations. Even the most cursory reader would flush me out if I tried to swerve that one, so I will not bother to (As if matters are not complicated enough, added to the economic potpourri, we now have President Trump. So, I will park that one). Like it or not, virtually everything is linked to Brexit. A thought comes to mind. The motto of my home town Bootle – Respice, Aspice, Prospice – could be the maxim for the country. It seems to sum up the current backdrop - look to the past, the present and the future. I think there is agreement that the debate about the economy is set in that context, namely of where we were, where we are and where we expect to be. Regrettably, that is as far as any agreement goes. However, there is something we can all agree upon. Fairly soon, we will be out of the European Union – lock, stock and smoking barrel. No Single Market, no Customs Union, no European Parliament, no European Council, no Court of Justice, no Council of Ministers and, no doubt, all sorts of other more informal get togethers. In the meantime, all sides in the debate are determined to ensure that their version of “what next” is backed up with as many “facts” as possible. Regrettably, the word “facts” seem to be a word of unlimited flexibility nowadays. It is virtually useless, in practical terms, given the continued polarisation. So, for example, one of the “facts” is that the pound is significantly down as a result of the Brexit vote. But another of the “facts” proffered is the pound was overvalued in the first place. No one wants to give ground. 32

One view expressed by the Governor of the Bank of England, taken by some as one of the “facts”, was the possibility of a “technical recession” as a result of the referendum. As yet, it has not happened. One of the much used nouns in all the verbiage so far is “uncertainty” - an understatement if ever there was one. Perhaps a re-coined phrase from earlier challenging economic times could be: “We have nothing to be uncertain of but uncertainty itself.” But enough of the context, where next for the British economy? At face value, the country will have taken back political control of its economy, its legal sovereignty, its regulatory framework, its borders, its culture, its own trade negotiations and its fishing and agricultural sectors. Given that, many believe opportunity beckons. Hopefully, it does. In the short-term, I suspect there will be no seismic or paradigm shift in any indicators of substance. Undoubtedly, inflation will rise and wages will be squeezed. The current low levels of private investment will meander along and productivity will remain low. It is reasonable to assume tax receipts may flatten and public services will atrophy in line with low public sector investment. A number of financial and manufacturing companies will move away. Meanwhile, labour shortages in some skilled and non-skilled areas will worsen. Slower incremental economic growth will occur, with regional disparities masking the median position - and much the same for employment levels. In addition to that, disruption of international trade in both goods and services will ensue. Given such a scenario, however, the question for the longer-term is a different kettle of (repatriated!) fish. Cumulative decrescence in economic growth and health over the next decade is my take on “where next for the UK economy.” In terms of pounds, shillings and pence, that means a deleterious, uneven effect on the living standards of millions of people. I hasten to add I do not suggest that as part of the economic “facts” of a post-Brexit life. I will leave that to history to decide.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

Stewart Hosie Shadow Scottish National Party Westminster Group Leader for the Economy and SNP MP for Dundee East

2016, with its European Union referendum, has come and gone. However, the Brexit vote will loom large over 2017 as the “phoney war” ends and the real negotiations begin.

¼ per cent cut to the base rate; an increase of QE to £435 billion; the purchase of up to £10 billion of corporate bonds; and the provision of a new Term Funding Scheme to allow more, cheaper lending by banks.

Those will cast an enormous shadow over the UK economy. Not least because of the uncertainty caused by the UK Government’s refusal to explain, at all, what it is they will try to negotiate from Europe.

I would hope that 2017 will ﬁnally see the Treasury add Fiscal Stimulus to the monetary policy activism of the Central Bank – but I am not holding my breath.

I expect that the UK Government will have to run very fast even to stand still as the consequences of Brexit begin to materialise. And those consequences could be very real and very serious. The Treasury’s own assessment and its conclusions rather conﬁrm that: tax receipts potentially down between £38 and £66 billion a year after 15 years and GDP down as much as 9.5 per cent (if the UK reverts to WTO rules). The impact on productivity is as bad. The London School of Economics (Centre for Economic Performance) suggests that reduced trade will reduce productivity, amounting to between 6.3 per cent and 9.5 per cent of GDP. That is the equivalent of up to £6,400 per household. That should ﬁnally force the UK Government to come clean on what it intends to do to maintain maximum trade and other links with the EU. And it should force them, at last, to explain their plan to mitigate the losses in tax yield and GDP. But it is not just Brexit. The UK needs a fully developed scheme to actually boost productivity. One which, at its heart, must focus on innovation, exports, investment and, most importantly, inclusive growth. The real problem is that the UK does not go into 2017 from a position of strength. UK GDP is already approaching close to 20 per cent lower than what it would have been even if we had achieved a paltry 2 per cent trend growth rate since 2008. So what can we expect? Well, we now have a Chancellor who appears less dogmatic than his predecessor in delivering an absolute surplus, although not to the point of abandoning this altogether! I think we will see the Bank of England continue with its monetary policy activism and see more of the same as in August 2016, with a

So now to some specifics. There is an increase in the forecast for Capital Expenditure, with the big ticket items being housing, housing infrastructure and transport. Only time will tell whether that cash can be deployed quickly enough to make a difference. On innovation, the Treasury was roundly condemned for changing Innovate UK’s funding model, where £165 million of innovation grants would be delivered as loans. It was then very welcome that the Autumn Statement announced R&D funding would rise to £2 billion a year by 2020/21. However, with £7 billion of Capital Expenditure and R&D funding pencilled in for 2021/22, the Chancellor must now put some flesh on the bone and tell us where that will be spent. The major area where I expect action to be taken on is exports. While I welcome the decision to double the UKs export risk finance capacity, as announced in the Autumn Statement, the UK requires to do much, much more, given the negative impact of trade on the GDP numbers. Until recently, it was still UK policy to double exports to £1 trillion this decade; however, export sales were £517 billion in 2013. And that fell to £511 billion in 2014 and down again to £509 billion in 2015. The numbers are moving in the wrong direction, and the threats from a hard Brexit make a focus on this an absolute imperative. 2017 will see confirmation that borrowing will still be around £60 billion, that the national debt will approach 90 per cent of GDP, and that the current budget will be nowhere near balanced. In short, that is confirmation that we have lived through a full decade of austerity, with the sad promise, from this Government, at least, of more to come. 33

politics ﬁrst | Spotlight

Baroness Susan Kramer Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for the Economy in the House of Lords and a Liberal Democrat Peer

“Where next for the UK economy” has to start with the impact of Brexit. The decision to leave the European Union, and how the Government manages it, will frame the UK economy for the next decade and beyond. Significantly, there will be an extraordinary number of secondary decisions which flow from Brexit. UK businesses have, in the last 20 years, integrated across the European economy. To break the links with the EU not just on introducing tariffs but on the regulations and rules which affect every part of our economy, would require virtually every major company to change its strategy, its pattern of investment, and, often, the location of its operations and jobs. Each choice that Government makes during the Brexit negotiations has the potential to spell life or death for a different industry. Every sector, services or manufacturing, large or small companies, especially those in a supply chain, and new entrepreneurial businesses based around the internet and new technologies, are waiting on these decisions with baited breath. Moving even part of a business is costly and disruptive, but many are now reassured that the move can be accomplished without significant loss of business momentum and have told their investors so. Those businesses will have to hear reassurance from the Government that their needs will be protected. Some point to future trade deals as an alternative for our economy. Whilst that could present an opportunity, even in the best case scenario deals are many years off. What is more, whilst UK manufacturers could potentially benefit over time, 80 per cent of our economy is still made up of services, on which we are highly unlikely to be able to strike a trade deal with many economies, such as India. Whilst business confidence remains positive for the short-term, we cannot take a blinkered attitude to the challenges we face. The most recent Chamber of Commerce report shows a huge spike in the number of businesses expecting inflation to push prices higher. Whether supermarkets can stock Marmite might seem of little consequence, but it shows that businesses are already having to choose reduced profit margins or increasing prices. At the moment, a 17 per cent devaluation in sterling and record levels of consumer borrowing are floating most businesses. But I am old enough to remember the consequences of debt and inflation. It feels so good and then comes the crunch. 34

In many ways, the timing of a disruptive Brexit could not be worse. Our economy, indeed the global economy, is undergoing fundamental change with all the new opportunities offered by the internet, artificial intelligence, machine learning and robotics. Those forces are pushing change further and faster in both services and manufacturing, going well beyond online sales and the “gig” economy of Uber and Airbnb. Many who regard themselves as in safe, skilled jobs will see those jobs disappear in the next five years. According to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, “a 2014 survey of technology experts found that only half believed that technology would continue to create jobs at a faster or similar rate than it displaces them.” To manage that revolution, we will have to reskill people, build new businesses, find new ways of working and even, perhaps, identify new ways of structuring businesses. We cannot allow a whole class of people to become disengaged from the economy or tied to low paid, intermittent work. Deeper problems underlie every scenario. Intergenerational fairness has been set aside for too long. Increasingly, the prospects of our young people are determined not by their talents or hard-work but whether or not they have a home to inherit from their parents. They suffered more in the recession than any other group. Our national infrastructure also remains wholly inadequate. The Government’s ambitions for broadband are a generation out of date, our renewable energy industries have been undermined by Government policy and plans for housing are so limited that they are frankly tragic. The Government shows no capacity to respond on any scale that can make a difference. Our economy is operating in very difficult waters. The world will not wait for us to complete Brexit. Our Government must face up to underinvestment in infrastructure, intergenerational unfairness and the challenges of the 4iR. Above all, it has to get Brexit right, starting by keeping our businesses in the Single Market.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

A fresh approach for confronting extremism Dr Makram KhouryMachool, Founding Director, The European Centre for the Study of Extremism

The European Centre for the Study of Extremism (EuroCSE) held its opening ceremony at the Cambridge University Centre, last December. During that ceremony, the prevailing feeling was that there is a sharp rise in extremist activities worldwide, and that this cannot be tackled by a security focus, alone. The solution, put forward, was to tackle extremism when it is still early in the mind, before it becomes a behavioural activity. It was necessary to outline, in the opening statement at the ceremony, that the dominant discourse currently promoted by various establishment advisors (security, defence, government, academia and media, for example) has a strong tendency towards reactionary responses, whereas EuroCSE’s vision and aim is a more educational and rational approach. Much of our independent expert and collective discussion has evolved in response to that trend. Speciﬁcally, we have found that, by addressing the social and political as well as media processes that are reactionary in nature, many of the problems can become easier to perceive. Those factors are unnecessarily contributing to, and even causing, needless suffering. The aim of establishing EuroCSE as an institution was to help work towards a much clearer and coherent understanding of economic and socio-political processes related to extremism in human societies. With that more integrated comprehension, we are working to create sustainable and compassionate interventions. The main intellectual challenge poses the following question: How do we shift from a system of public opinion and the construction of daily political reality across the globe from one that is potentially exaggerated, based on emotional reactivity, towards an informed and enfranchised programme of collective betterment? Having witnessed, ﬁrst-hand, in my life, war, terrorism, radicalisation and extremism, and having been in media for three decades and academia for over 20 years, I have witnessed the worst of human nature, mixed with the darker sides of political processes. I and my enlightened colleagues felt that that dysfunctionality needed to be addressed through the establishment of an educational and academic research centre, to put those social phenomena in a structured context and healthful order.

The Centre aims at bringing an archetypal shift in the study of the evolution of extremism in the mind. That transformation needs to include factors in the mind and in the body, as well as in the environment. EuroCSE wishes, in the more European tradition, to de-militarise, de-terrorise and de-radicalise the field by focusing on the first seeds and problematic origins at work. The need to disentangle social events and processes, such as radicalisation, extremism, terrorism and war, is pertinent to the times we are living in, but it is, nevertheless, an increasingly difficult task. We need to spool back to find and humanely treat the unhealthful relationships which give rise to forms of violence, but we need to do this on an entirely new and deeper level. From terrorism to radicalisation and then set our research on extremism. All of those forms need to be understood as forms of enactment and expressions of cycles of trauma. The launch and opening ceremony was described by many attendees as intellectually stimulating due to the level of representation by EuroCSE Patrons and Advisory Board Members. The Rt Hon and Rt Rev the Lord Dr Rowan Williams of Oystermouth, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and EuroCSE Patron, lit a ceremonial candle at the launch before delivering a riveting and exceptional keynote address. Lord Dr. Williams emphasised the notion that, psychologically, extremists believe that their viewpoint is the normative, which he described as a modern phenomenon rooted in uncertainty. He posited to the audience the need to “search for simple solutions to extreme situations.” The first honorary panel was chaired by EuroCSE Advisory Board Member Dr Marie-Athena Papathanasiou, which included EuroCSE Patron, the Rt. Hon Baroness Uddin, who spoke about women in the broader context of Islam and extremism. And finally, EuroCSE Patron, the Rt Hon and Rt Rev the Lord Dr Eames OM, former Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, shared his monumental first-hand accounts and experience of dealing with extremism in Ireland. EuroCSE aims to make use of multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary perspectives and methods. Finally, and with a very promising and busy year ahead, EuroCSE wishes to facilitate debates on political, security and socio-economic impacts of violent extremism, with the intentionality of developing meaningful dialogues of healing and transformation. For further information, please visit: www.eurocse.org 35

politics ﬁrst | Features

The urgent and moral need for more transparency around fur Marisa Heath, Secretariat of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and a Conservative Surrey County Councillor

In 1994, the world’s supermodels featured under the slogan, “We’d rather go naked than wear fur”. Fur became taboo, with only the very rich and thick-skinned daring to be seen in it. That led Government to bring in the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act of 2000, by which England and Wales banned fur farming completely. And despite having had no fur farms themselves, Northern Ireland and Scotland both banned fur farming shortly afterwards. Hence, there are no fur farms anywhere in the UK today. Yet, in the last couple of years, fur has reappeared, with 70 per cent of designer collections using it. Figures from the International Fur Federation show that the industry is enjoying another year of considerable growth. Former Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the International Fur Federation, said he was unsurprised by the growth in production, as the taboo around wearing real fur is fading into irrelevance. All of the campaigning, therefore, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, seems to have been lost. In 2013/14, 87.2 million mink pelts were produced around the world, with 35 million of them produced by China, alone, and this figure continues to grow. China remains one of the biggest producers of fox pelt, and, together with Finland, was responsible for 91 per cent of the 7.8 million fox furs produced globally. Whilst the fur industry in Canada, the US and Europe, for example, remains, to an extent, regulated, serious concerns exist over the production standards in China, which does not have the same protection for animal welfare. Mr Oaten has said that cleaning up the Chinese fur trade remains a priority. However, regardless of good intentions from the trade, the difficulty will lie in ensuring that regulations are enforced. The problem facing us, currently, is the almost unrecognised influx of cheap fur, mainly coming from China, found on bobble hats, coat collars, scarves and being sold on market stalls and in high street shops. In the past, most clothing embellishments were made from faux fur, so now consumers often mistaken a cheap price tag as an indicator that the fur is fake. The terrible truth, however, is that animals are often cared for so poorly on fur farms that their fur can be produced as cheaply, or even more cheaply, than manufacturing faux fur. 36

Consumers are being failed by wrongly labelled items, giving a false sense of security. Humane Society International carried out laboratory tests on three items being sold as faux fur this winter, finding them to be made of mink, fox, raccoon dog and rabbit. And Debenhams pulled handbags from its shelves after it emerged that their ‘fake fur’ pom-pom was actually real fur. Other countries have recognised poor labelling legislation as a key factor in lowering standards. Consequently, Barack Obama signed The Truth in Fur Labeling Act, in 2010, to improve transparency, putting the US ahead of the UK. Even further ahead is Switzerland, whose legislation requires that all furs and fur products must be labelled to provide the consumer information, including the species of the animal from which the skin came, the country of origin of the skin, and a declaration on the origin of the skin to inform the consumer whether the skin has been hunted (with or without traps) or how it has been farmed. UK Government should consider both the US and Swiss models, as improved labelling would be in line with the Conservative ethos to empower the consumer and would help to ensure transparency around the sale of fur items. The other important factor is the controls over what is imported into the UK, a timely issue alongside Brexit and debates over trade. If we allow fur produced to low standards to undermine those produced to high standards, we eventually drive all standards down. In 2015, an undercover investigation into a raccoon dog farm in China revealed horrendous practices, including live skinning and filthy living conditions. Produced in those circumstances, a raccoon dog’s life can be worth less than a dollar, once worked back from retail prices. People cannot have cheaply produced commodities without there being some sort of cost down the line, which should not, and cannot, be ignored. To do so, takes us backwards in regards to progress, not just relating to animal welfare, but also, potentially, to slave labour, poor working conditions, environmental damage and a driving force that nothing matters except the cheap deal. For the benefit of both animals and people, we need to be resolute in defending our moral position, not just on fur, but on a number of other commodities coming into the UK, too.

February 2017 | www.politicsﬁrst.org.uk

ACTAsia: A force for morality and ethics Pei-Feng Su, Founder and Executive Director, ACTAsia

ACTAsia was founded in 2006 and is registered as a charity in the UK, USA, Netherlands and Australia. ACTAsia has an office in China and works with international staff, volunteers and advisors from a wide variety of fields. ACTAsia believes that the way to tackle issues of extreme animal cruelty, human suffering and the large scale destruction of the environment, is not by firefighting the individual problems, but by changing thinking through education. In China, as well as many other Asian nations, there are no animal protection laws, there is a lack of understanding about the sentience of animals, and there are rapidly growing environmental concerns. Those issues, coupled with China’s rapid growth, urbanisation and industrialisation, are posing serious threats to humans, animals and the environment. Our efforts to combat those challenges are concentrated into three pillars: Humane Education, Consumer Education and Professional Education. In Chinese schools and rural outreach programmes (summer/ winter camps), we focus on ACTAsia’s Caring for Life Education programme. To date, CLE has reached more than 53,500 students and trained more than 1,100 teachers, informing and educating about compassion, empathy and our behaviour towards humans, animals and the world we share. Resource materials have been developed, translated and adapted to suit Chinese schools and culture. CLE has been designed for all primary school children in China, including the 61 million Chinese left-behind children. Their parents have left their home towns to work in cities, leaving their child with either grandparents or relatives or friends - or sometimes on their own. Those children lack moral guidance and ways of building relationships with those around them. An evaluation by Professor William E. Samuels has indicated that CLE can reliably improve children’s pro-social behaviour and teach them compassion, empathy and kindness to others. That information has been presented at venues such as Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, and the Association of Professional Humane Educators.

To educate consumers, we concentrate on promoting a “Compassionate Lifestyle”. The annual Fur Free Fashion Show, in China, is a world first, influencing millions of fashion shoppers across Asia and gaining momentum and recognition with each successive year. ACTAsia is also the Fur Free Alliance representative for China and is active in recruiting Fur Free Retailers to join the international movement. In addition to that, we carry out research to further enable us to advocate the benefits of a compassionate lifestyle to consumers, highlighting how their choices affect others, the environment and, in some cases, even their own health. Professional education is offered to key stakeholders, who are likely to influence thinking of animals and our planet. In the past, we have helped with the capacity building of grassroots NGOs, social workers and lawyers. Currently, we work with Vets for Compassion (Australia) to train vets in order to improve welfare standards in animal treatment and combat issues such as stray overpopulation and the danger of Rabies. To date, we have trained more than 800 vets in China as part of the Cure with Care programme and offer Continued Professional Development to them as part of this programme. “Training the Trainers” is a key feature of that project, which ensures its sustainability. ACTAsia is honoured to have received numerous awards in recent years, such as the Ceva Charity of the Year Award and China’s Top 10 Most Influential Urbanisation Organisations, for its outstanding contribution to society. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our staff, volunteers and supporters for their dedicated help since 2006. If you, too, would like to support ACTAsia, in any way possible, please contact us through our website www.actasia.org, or email info@actasia.org

politics ﬁrst | Features

Under which Prime Minister were the most houses built in the UK? Tom Curtin, Chief Executive, Curtin&Co

Well, the winner is Harold Wilson. In his first term of office, between 1965 and 1969, there were more than 350,000 houses built each year. That figure completely dwarfs the 123,000 average built under the Cameron administration. So, when we say we are going to build 1,000,000 new houses by 2020, this is a small number. If we had good old pipe-smoking, mac-wearing Harold back, he would have built 1.75 million houses in the same period. And the blame is across parties. When Tony Blair and John Prescott were swept to power in 1997, they promised 240,000 a year up until 2016. They were off to a flying start in 1997/8 when we built some 220,000 new homes. Then we had the recession and the number went through the floor.

One report says that we will need 700,000 people to be recruited in the next ﬁve years to replace those leaving the construction industry. For comparison, that is the population of Leeds. But where will we get all the carpenters, brick-layers, electricians, plumbers and the like from? We are just not training the people in the necessary skills. Now that the Irish (me included), have been gentriﬁed, we have to look elsewhere for cheap labour: Eastern Europe. With Brexit looming, skilled craftspeople from that neck of the woods may either be put off, chucked out or have the doors shut on them.

On policy, more housing is something that all parties agree on. We need more homes for a burgeoning population; over the past 50 years, the number has increased by some 20 per cent to 64 million people.

The housing crisis problem runs across all departments of Government, not just the Department for Communities and Local Government. It needs inputs from education and transport, to name just a few. And, of course, there is the Treasury.

Until last year, we were mostly a nation of home-owners, but this changing fast. Now the renters are in the majority for the ﬁrst time since the 1930s. But even if the national psyche about owning is changing, there still remains the problem of sites.

Back in the Swingin’ Sixties (if you remember them, then you missed the party), about half of the houses were built for the public rented sector, or council estates as they were known. Sure, mistakes were made but we can learn from these.

Does that really matter? In countries like the USA, Germany and that bastion of free enterprise, Switzerland, long-term renting has always been the way forward. It does away with all the hassle of maintenance, for instance. Sure, there are rent controls, but they are fair and reasonable. If people have somewhere they call home, they are happy even if they do not own it.

That all needs very long-term planning and, indeed vision, and an acceptance that there is no quick ﬁx. We are looking for a solution for the next generation.

But, policy is the easy bit; the big problem is delivery. Even if all regulations in the Planning and Housing Act are fully implemented, there is still the problem of sites. The Green Belts remain sacrosanct and there are increasing worries about high-rise. A few years ago, Garden Cities were all the rage. The only problem is that we do not have the political will to build them where they are most needed – especially in the south-east. 38

And then there is the problem of labour – the people, not the party. Who will build all of the houses?

In excess of 250,000 new homes a year are the sort of numbers we need if we are going to beat the housing crisis. And politically, the time is right. The Government has – on paper at least – a manageable majority - the next election is not until 2020 (supposedly) and the Labour Party is in disarray. So there is a huge task ahead which will need the support of government at the highest level, if we are going to make tough decisions which, at times, may raise local anger and opposition. Harold, where are you now when we need you?

politics ﬁrst | Interviews

ADVERTORIAL

The paper industry is key to the British economy Andrew Large, Director General of the Confederation of Paper Industries, tells Marcus Papadopoulos about his objectives as he takes the helm of the trade association representing the UK’s paper-based industries

Q How will the Confederation of Paper Industries’ strategy change following your arrival? I am very supportive of the Confederation of Paper Industries’ long-term strategy to promote the energy competitiveness of the UK’s paper-based industries. Without competitive energy supplies, the industry is at a marked disadvantage from other European and global producers. As for the future, I consider the development of an optimistic mind-set as being a key priority. The paper-based industries in the UK have much to be proud about. They have cut carbon emissions by 63 per cent relative to 1990 levels; they innovate in the development of new and exciting packaging; and they lead the UK in recovery and recycling. Paper is an incredibly versatile product for printing, packaging and hygiene applications, with new innovations coming on stream daily. I want to see that optimism feed into our communications with Government. Ministers are under extraordinary pressure to deliver positive results to the electorate, in terms of jobs and opportunities across the country. I want them to see that the paper industry is a key partner in that work. Q How will Brexit affect the UK’s paper-based industries? On one level, it is, of course, much too early to tell what the impact of Brexit will be. Our major concern has been that it does not lead to disinvestment from the UK economy as a result of the establishment of trade barriers, especially with the remaining European Union countries. We have three key objectives for the negotiations. Firstly, post-Brexit, the UK’s paper-based industries should be able to serve their customers across Europe without the hindrance of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The European paper industry has integrated supply chains and any disruption to these chains will cost investment and jobs in the UK. Secondly, it is imperative that there is no divergence in standards between the UK and remaining EU countries. A divergent standards regime will add to business costs for no real gain, act as a barrier to international trade, and further hamper investment and employment in the UK. My ﬁnal Brexit objective concerns the movement of skilled workers. The UK’s paper-based industries are not large employers of non-UK labour, but they do use pan-European skilled technical teams as part of normal operations. Those groups need to be able to travel freely at very short notice (sometimes hours) to provide technical support, advice and maintenance services on site. Any disruption to that will greatly increase costs and could lead to a re-evaluation of investment in the UK. Q What are your priorities for the Industrial Strategy? I very much see the UK’s policy on Brexit working hand in hand with the development of the UK’s industrial strategy. I welcome the establishment of the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and also the Green Paper on Industrial Strategy. CPI will continue to push for an Industrial Strategy that goes beyond horizontal enabling measures and sets targets and policies for growth in UK manufacturing. If the UK economy is to work for all, as the Prime Minister has stated, then it will need to offer more good manufacturing careers at all levels across the UK than it currently does. Q What do you want from Government? I have three key policy asks for the Government. Firstly, I seek a long-term policy of decarbonisation, coupled with full support for the energy intensive sector to enable papermaking to decarbonise, while enhancing its international competitiveness. Paper has much to offer as an inherently sustainable and renewable resource, but, in the short-term, we need support to smooth the costs and competitiveness impact of this massive change. Secondly, I want support for the development of the bio-economy and circular economy here in the UK. That is independent of the UK’s participation (or not) in the forthcoming EU Circular Economy Package. The qualities of paper mean that it can play the fundamental role in an economy that is focused on a short carbon cycle, which minimises the use of fossil carbon. Thirdly, recycling is increasingly important and the quality of paper in the recycling loop is coming under greater scrutiny. I want to see government address the issue of commingled collections and work with stakeholders, such as CPI and WRAP, to deliver better quality recovered paper for recycling.

politics ﬁrst | Diary

Nigel Nelson

Nelson’s Column Keeping an eye on The People

May we know where we are heading to, Mrs May?

be built; and Heathrow finally got its third runway, only to have take-off delayed until a Commons vote next year. The PM desperately needs overseas trade deals, but failed to get one in India, despite dressing up in the local clobber. She should have thought about what migration goodies the Indians might have wanted before she put on that sari. The suspicion is that Theresa May is unable to tell us what she wants because she does not know herself. Without a Tory leadership election, let alone a General Election, she has not been required to produce a manifesto.

In my last Nelson’s Column, I said that Theresa May was looking less than surefooted during her first six months in office. Now there are signs she is finding her feet. She’s still full of it – slogans, that is - although Brexit no longer just means Brexit but “clean Brexit”. Better than calling it hard or soft, which made Brexit sound like a boiled egg. At last, the prime minister has told us how she would like her egg done; not runny but firm. No membership of the single market for any little soldiers who had hoped otherwise, but a luscious yolk of tariff-free trade. Tall order, that. Having her egg and eating it, some might say.

“The suspicion is that Theresa May is unable to tell us what she wants because she does not know herself” Of course, a long line of Remainers, including Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, ex-PMs John Major and Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Chuka Umunna and all 54 SNP MPs, will scream that they did not want the egg cooked in the first place, and whatever the Brexit breakfast eventually on offer is, will stick in their gullets. Best reach for the indigestion pills then, lads. The only way to halt Brexit now is to delay Article 50, because I understand that once it’s triggered, the Government’s legal advice is that it’s probably irreversible. The author of Article 50, former British ambassador and independent Scottish peer Lord Kerr, reckons it does allow us to change our minds but even he’s not sure. As Article 50 has never been used 42

Her Lancaster House speech last month, billed as the best given by any PM in years, delighted the Brexiteers, but the decision to leave the single market was not so much a choice as an inevitability, given that she must ditch free movement to introduce crowd-pleasing immigration controls.

before, only the European Court could give a definitive answer. But once MPs realise there won’t be two bites at this cherry, with no possibility of a second referendum, they will start playing merry hell with the Brexit Parliamentary process. Which Mrs May wants to avoid at all costs. Another of Mrs May’s new catchphrases is “Global Britain”, whatever this means. And it’s a strange one, given she said at the Tory Party conference that “if you believe you are a citizen of the world, you are a citizen of nowhere.” So perhaps Mrs May’s vision of Global Britain is a Britain with no global citizens in it. What she will not be dropping is her “country that works for everyone” mantra, despite her dithering over how she intends to make the country work at all. More grammar schools were the initial answer yet we have heard no more about them. Proposals to put workers on company boards and make firms list their foreign employees were abandoned almost as soon as they were articulated. The new nuclear plant at Hinckley Point was only given the go ahead after Mrs May put her own question mark over whether it would

The first indication that Mrs May was moving away from negotiating single market access, and moving towards some kind of a deal over a customs union, which only involves the free movement of goods, came ten days earlier when Sky News launched its new politics show, Sophy Ridge on Sunday. Sky decided that it needed a sparkly new star to replace Dermot Murnaghan in the slot that he had held since January, 2011, to go with its sparkly new “glass box”, from which most of its programmes are now broadcast. Sophy was rightly proud to become the first woman to present her own TV Sunday politics show. She was also justifiably proud to have bagged the first interview of the year with Britain’s second woman PM. Sophy was not so proud that, in all the excitement, she forgot to feed her cat.