By Frank Field, MP for Birkenhead

How should the Left approach welfare reform so that it can offer the UK a distinctive and workable choice at the next election?

Voters will be confronted with the issue of how vulnerable our system of welfare is while our borders with the European Union remain as they are. There is likely to be a large migration of Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK next year (when the EU’s free movement of labour principle is extended eastwards) – no matter what the so-called experts say.

The Government clearly has no policies in place to deal with or discourage that migration. Over time, our welfare state has been transformed, with the entry criteria once largely based on contributions. Now our welfare state meets needs – it offers help automatically to those individuals with incomes below a set level.

That transformation changed the character of welfare and, with it, our expectations of our rights to help. Clement Attlee’s welfare state was based on the idea that people had to pay in before they could draw help. Welfare is now perceived as supporting two nations – very largely those people who pay in and those people who draw out.

The expansion of the EU’s principle provides a focus for welfare reform in this country. To actively prevent welfare acting as an incentive to come to Britain, I would suggest a short Bill goes through Parliament that sets out a new set of rules for all new claims so that in future, to draw welfare requires firstly, a ten year residency test; and secondly, a contributory test whereby there is a track record of payments into the system, either directly or by close relatives – for example, from parents, aunts and uncles; or an individual undertakes a function prized by society, for example, caring and thereby earning contributions this way.

Unemployed school leavers, for example, would qualify under the residency test and on their parents’ or extended family’s national insurance contributions.

A mother would build up contributions and rights to benefit under her function – by being a carer and resident.

New arrivals would qualify only if they fulfilled two of the qualifying conditions. They could become eligible for minimum help as a prelude to returning home.

Such an approach meets the urgency of protecting the welfare state against new claims from European immigration because as it applies to the host population it should be easily defendable in the European courts; by initiating this programme, we would set out a new course in welfare reform – it would begin to re-establish a contributory based welfare state; and it opens up a new partnership between the government and voters with the possibility of the new system run by national mutuals to cover welfare and NHS provision.

That last point is urgent and suggests how the Left’s approach to welfare reform might develop. Take just one example of an aging population. We live longer, draw our pensions for a greater period of time and make increased demands over longer periods of time on the NHS.

Yet we live in an age when the national budget has to be cut. Welfare is the largest single item of government expenditure and must therefore bear some share in that overall reduction.

So how do we square the circle? Voters need greater security, pensions for longer periods of time and more intensive support from the NHS.

I believe that it is possible to gain increased contributions specifically for those kinds of goals. A new tax contract would have to be struck whereby the increased insurance contributions to fund those expenses are protected from the sticky fingers of politicians.

The proposal is that, just as there would be an insurance mutual for unemployment, so, too, would there be a national insurance mutual for long-term care, one for the NHS and, similarly, a mutual for a funded pension which would wrap around the existing state pension and offer a pension above means-tested assistance for all contributors.

That is just the sort of idea Ed Miliband should seize to offer the country a distinctive choice at the next election that is routed heavily in Labour’s tradition.

By Malcolm Bruce, Chair of the International Development Committee

‘I had nobody to talk to. I told my teacher but she was not interested.’ Those are the words of a young woman of Somali origin who was speaking to us about her experience of female genital mutilation (FGM). That distressing topic is one of a number of issues we are considering under our current inquiry into violence against women and girls.

The World Health Organisation estimates that globally, up to 140 million girls and women have been subjected to some form of FGM. Used to control women’s sexuality, FGM involves removing or otherwise cutting the external female genitalia. It is usually performed on children (although sometimes at puberty or on adult women) and is generally carried out by unskilled practitioners who use unsterilized instruments and no anaesthetic, risking potentially lethal infection. Other consequences include severe pain during urination, menstruation, sexual intercourse, childbirth as well as psychological trauma.

Often perceived as an African problem – it is practised in up to 42 African countries – it is also widespread in some Asian countries and in the Middle East (for example, in Iraqi Kurdistan more than 70 per cent of women have undergone FGM). Prevalence rates vary significantly from country to country, and within countries according to differing community practices. The highest rates are found in countries in the Horn and the west of Africa – 98 per cent of women in Somalia have experienced FGM.

Girls in the UK also experience this form of gender-based violence and, indeed, child abuse. No one knows the exact figures, but it is estimated that in the UK, 20,000 girls are at risk and 66,000 women are thought to be living with the consequences of FGM. Members of diaspora communities often take girls back to their country of origin to have the procedure, although it is thought that cutting takes place within the UK itself.

Despite the fact that FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985, and punishable by up to 14 years in prison, there has not been a single prosecution – even after the law was tightened in 2003 to criminalise FGM taking place on UK citizens overseas.

Campaigners argue that the UK will only start prosecuting FGM cases once it has a coherent cross-Government strategy in place. But efforts to prevent FGM must go beyond law enforcement. The Department of Health, in particular, could play a key role by collecting data and referring those at-risk. Maternity services, and follow-up services by midwives and health visitors, provide an obvious entry point for intervention. We were shocked to discover that there is currently no mandatory data collection about FGM, and that even when information is gathered, it is not shared within the NHS or with schools or the police.

Teachers should also be galvanised into action – notwithstanding the fact that Personal Social and Health Education is no longer compulsory. Together with social services and the police, schools should be required to offer the appropriate protection to prevent the abuse.

Most of all, as a witness told us, the UK must stop treading on “cultural eggshells”. It must put aside political correctness to usher in a far more robust approach, where the police proactively track FGM and step in, standing in the way of parents.

The current reactive measures must be replaced with swift action. The Director of Public Prosecutions has published an ‘Action Plan’ to increase prosecutions: this must be implemented with urgency. The Department for International Development (DFID) has announced dedicated funding and programming to “end FGM in one generation”. If that aspiration is to met, the £35 million funding must see rapid – but careful – investment, including in comprehensive measures to secure change within the UK.

Abroad, DFID must pursue a holistic approach that involves prevention, provision of care, protection and justice outcomes. A strong legal framework is a vital component in tackling discrimination against women and girls, including FGM, as is borne out by the example of Burkina Faso, where the law is applied alongside public education, and where there has been a 27 per cent decline in the prevalence of FGM over the past two decades.

Another important component of DFID’s approach should include girls’ education. We were told of that by girls themselves during our recent visit to Ethiopia. We recorded the testimony of thosee girls in a short film which is available on our website (www.parliament.uk/indcom). Each year of basic education that a girl completes has a significant effect on her health and empowerment, and helps her delay marriage and childbirth until later. Education will help her become a change agent in her own right. Perhaps then, her own daughters need not go through the harmful and isolating experience of FGM, and they will not need “someone to talk to” in the way the girl we spoke to did.

By Esther McVey MP, Minister for Disabled People

The past few months have seen a number of key changes to the welfare state that demonstrates how the Government is delivering on its promise to restore fairness to the system.

Throughout those reforms we must make we sure we continue to protect the most vulnerable people in society. As Minister for Disabled People, I am proud that we are one of the world leaders in the rights for disabled people, with the UK spending on disability-related benefits a fifth higher than the EU average.

We rightly continue to spend around £50 billion a year on disabled people and their services, and part of this we have protected in the budget for specialist disability employment services.

It is important to recognise that the disability employment picture is improving. The disability employment rate has increased over recent years, but there is still more work to be done to close the gap with non-disabled people.

In order to support disabled people to fulfil their potential and live independent lives, we are focusing employment support to help level the playing field for disabled people in mainstream jobs – the same as everyone else. That includes all sectors from hairdressing to engineering and everything in between.

Access to Work gives exactly that support as it provides financial help towards the extra costs faced by disabled people in mainstream jobs. Through Access to Work, disabled people can claim for additional travel costs, specially adapted equipment or support workers.

Recent changes we have made mean that disabled people can now have a wider range of equipment available, including specialist IT software, visual magnification equipment, advance telephony equipment and specialist manual tools. I would urge disabled people to enquire as to whether they could benefit from that support at Gov.uk

Enterprising disabled people, setting up their own business, can now also benefit through the New Enterprise Allowance (NEA). The NEA provides financial support for the early months of self-employment as well as access to a start-up loan to help people get over the hurdles of starting a business.

The NEA offers a network of quality mentors who can help new businesses grow. The mentors are made up of people who have already started and run successful companies themselves.

We are also undertaking a piece of work to promote positive role models with disability charity Whizz-Kidz. Young people from Whizz-Kidz – and other disability groups – have chosen and filmed disabled role models who inspire their generation. Fifty YouTube videos have already been produced with a focus on overcoming barriers: http://www.youtube.com/user/rolemodelsinspire

Young disabled people tell me that they want to see more inspiring role models to show where disabled people have achieved their ambitions despite the odds being stacked against them. We will continue to work alongside young disabled people on those real life stories to help inspire the next generation.

By Anne McGuire MP, Shadow Minister for Disabled People

Governments love “strategies”. However, they not only have to develop them, but also ensure that they are delivered. In 2005, having established the Disability Rights Commission in 1999, the Labour Government produced “Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People”, its groundbreaking disability strategy. It was different in three ways. Firstly, it was developed by disabled people working as full participants with the Strategy Unit in No 10. Secondly, it had a vision with a clearly defined roadmap which everybody bought into. And thirdly, it had clear and measurable milestones with named ministers specifically charged with its implementation and reporting annually to the Prime Minister on progress achieved.

The Coalition Government, after three years in power, has only recently published its “Fulfilling Potential” report, apparently a step on the road to producing its own strategy. The report states that: “A wide range of outcome measures show improvement from their baseline. There have been significant improvements in educational attainment, in the employment rate and a reduction in the employment rate gap. There have also been improvements in other factors contributing to quality of life, for example in access to transport and access to goods and services. Attitudes towards disabled people have also been improving in some cases.”

So why is it that I constantly hear disabled people saying that their world is going backwards; that they feel they are not valued; that they feel demonised in the tabloid media; and that they are now the victims of greater levels of hate crime? Why is it that the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated recently that: “There seems to be a significant risk of retrogression of independent living and a breach of the UK’s obligations [of the UN Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities].” Why are disabled people increasingly in the courts challenging government policy and not inside No 10 helping develop it?

Where is the disability strategy? What is it? “Fulfilling Potential”, as it stands, is little more than a research paper, often advising the reader of progress since 2005, without recognising that progress was made because the “Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People” strategy was not just an analysis of the challenges but a roadmap to breaking down the barriers. Disabled people could plot the progress as it affected their lives. I wonder if the reluctance of the current government to commit to its own disability strategy is that they do not want to be held to account by disabled people?

Is it little wonder that disabled people feel disengaged and resentful at what is happening? I suspect that they have made up their own minds as to what the government’s strategy is. To them, it is one that sees a raft of changes in the benefits system without considering the cumulative impact on their lives – abolition of DLA, reductions in support for families with disabled children, the bedroom tax, cutbacks in social care and support, and a Work Programme that is not delivering for them. What kind of progressive strategy thinks that an equality duty is a burden on business, rather than an encouragement to break down barriers?

The UK used to be seen across the world as a beacon for the progress it had made towards equality for disabled people. Sadly, action speaks louder than words, and as Sir Bert Massie, former chair of the DRC, once said: “Many disabled people have been invited to look up to the stars…only to find the ground opening up beneath them.”

By David Blunkett, MP for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and a former Home Secretary

In the run up to the 2010 General Election, a little noticed yet high profile investigation took place under the auspices of the Speaker of the House of Commons. John Bercow, the current Speaker, inherited this from Michael Martin (now Lord Martin) and enthusiastically embraced the idea. The idea being that a review should take place by a cross party group of Members of the House of Commons into how to improve not only the diversity of the Commons itself, but also access into the political and public arena, and the removal or amelioration of barriers to access.
At my request, the review was widened from gender and race to include disability. As a consequence, I had no choice but to join the Speaker’s Commission. As it happened, the Vice Chair of the group (the Speaker being the nominal Chair) was Dame Anne Begg, the Labour MP for Aberdeen South, who herself is a wheelchair user and has much to demonstrate in terms of how to overcome adversity. For the bulk of the Commission’s work, she chaired the meetings.

What was clear was that there were extremely positive vibes in respect of widening diversity including for people with disabilities. What was equally clear is that none of the main political parties, nor for that matter the civil service, had in the past the first idea what to do, and with some notable exceptions, were not all that enthusiastic about having to do something!

As a Cabinet Minister from 1997 onwards, I had been responsible myself for overseeing the substantial expansion of the terms of reference of the Disability Discrimination Act, the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, which was later incorporated in the Equality Commission, and the extension of Special Needs provision in schools (and a substantial grant for those with disabilities going into higher education). I had also ‘saved’ the Access to Work programme in the Department for Work and Pensions from substantial cuts (reversed and later, under both governments, expanded).

And, hopefully by example, I changed attitudes across society.

However, whatever contribution I have made pales into insignificance in terms of the challenge ahead. For on the back of the Commission we have seen only minimal movement within the main political parties to facilitate greater engagement and necessary support in relation to those within a variety of disabilities, taking their place alongside others in the public arena and as active citizens.

There are many reasons for that. Although to its credit (driven, as it happens, by the Conservatives), the Coalition have set up a small fund to facilitate ‘access’ virtually no one knows about it – its scope is limited and all the political parties have made little effort to use it!

Parliament itself has made some efforts in terms of physical access to the Palace of Westminster, and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority have actually shown real commitment and imagination in offering support to those members of Parliament who have additional needs.

Nevertheless, with the civil service being slashed, with austerity biting into every budget, and with local government in virtual meltdown, it is not surprising that increased access for people with disabilities has taken somewhat of a back seat.
This, if I am honest, is something to which I now need to turn my attention to. Dame Anne Begg has been tireless in following up the Commission Report and there is much more that those of us who care about these matters can and should do. However, I have always taken the view that disability is not the prerogative of the disabled. It is a question that every single individual elected to public office at whatever level, every senior policy-maker and administrator, should feel is ‘something to do with me’. Otherwise, disabled people speak to disabled people, and campaigners campaign to influence those who are already committed!

Yes, a variety of experiences can be better understood and drawn down on, by listening to and understanding the needs of those who in the past have been patronised at best and ignored at worst. But as every person with a disability will accord, it is not a pat on the head but practical hard headed support that individuals require if they are to break down barriers, overcome often subliminal prejudice and, of course, set aside practicalities by drawing on the kind of assistance they themselves prescribe.

At the moment, with substantial change in the benefits system (whether you view it favourably or otherwise), many disabled people feel fearful and unsure. Are they really the villains as portrayed by some branches of the media? The answer is No. Those with a defined disability are no better or worse than any other member of our society. They are, after all, when push comes to shove, living, breathing individuals. They are in fact ‘us’!

By Gregory Barker MP, Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change

The Coalition Government is committed to helping hardworking families and vulnerable people with the rising cost of living. With the big rises in international gas prices and a spate of cold winters, we realise that growing numbers across the UK have been struggling with the cost of heating their homes.

So with the cost of living at the top of this agenda, last autumn the Prime Minister promised to take action to put every consumer on the cheapest tariff best for them. Last month, the Coalition published plans to take forward that pledge. We will be taking powers in the Energy Bill to replace the bewildering number of tariffs we currently have with just four. That will help to provide people with a clear choice and ensure that consumers are aware of the cheapest deal to suit their preferences. Ofgem has estimated that this could save to save up to £158 per energy bill.

Yet driving innovation up as well as costs down will be the key to success in the international economy. In the global race for prosperity in a fiercely competitive world, we recognise that smart interventions by government can actually trigger billions of pounds of extra private sector investment.

As far as UK consumers are concerned, the Government’s flagship Green Deal is set to have a huge impact on bills. Launched this January, the Green Deal is a revolutionary approach to tackling one of the country’s largest greenhouse gases emitters – buildings. Believe it or not, UK buildings account for 38 per cent of total emissions and are among the least efficient in Europe. Millions of our homes lack decent double-glazing, proper insulation or even an efficient boiler.

The Green Deal is aspirational. It offers millions of people the choice of an array of affordable energy efficiency products to help individuals stay warm for less, but also improve and add value to their home. Under the scheme, homes and businesses pay for improvements through savings on their fuel bills – removing expensive upfront costs that so often put people off. And the “golden rule” ensures that the expected savings must be at least as big as the repayments, including interest. As an example of how much could be saved, a typical three bedroom semi-detached house could reduce its energy bills by around £270 a year with solid-wall insulation alone.

For people on low incomes or harder to treat properties, we have provided extra help worth a minimum of half a billion pounds each year through the new Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which was introduced alongside the Green Deal. Our Warm Home Discount scheme, launched in April 2011, is helping over 2 million households each year. This winter, more than 1.1 million of the poorest pensioners received £130 off their energy bill as a result. And Winter Fuel Payments and Cold Weather Payments are also in place to help with the cost of heating homes.

A modest fall in the number of households living in fuel poverty was confirmed this April and I am very encouraged by it. But we need to make sure we are doing all we can to tackle the root cause.

A crucial part of getting it right is making sure that we understand the ‘trigger’ factors that push people into fuel poverty – and properly target those most in need.
In March 2011, we commissioned an Independent Review of Fuel Poverty – including how we measure and define it – undertaken by Professor John Hills of the London School of Economics. Professor Hills found the ‘10 per cent’ definition of fuel poverty set out in 2001 to be fundamentally flawed. We agreed. A new definition has now been proposed. It is much more realistic and an important step in enabling us to better address the issue, and we will shortly be setting out the way forward.

In the last three years, we have achieved a great deal but we are under absolutely no illusion that there is a lot more to do. But we are determined to finish the job.

By Luciana Berger MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change

Every year in Britain, millions of people – single parents, families with young children and pensioners – are left shivering in their own homes because they cannot afford the cost of ever rising heating bills. With the number of fuel poor households increasing inexorably every year, it is no wonder that some are wondering if ending fuel poverty really is an impossible challenge.

The Government’s only response to the crisis so far has been to obsess about the numbers and defining it. Currently, a household is classed as being fuel poor when they have to spend 10 per cent or more of their income to heat their home.

Professor John Hills was commissioned by ministers to conduct a review of fuel poverty and how it is measured. He proposed a new definition, the effect of which would be to reduce the number of households classed as fuel poor by half. As a result, many felt that the exercise had simply been an effort by the Government to massage the figures downwards, rather than a serious attempt to solve this national scandal.

However, while there is clearly a debate to be had over how best to measure fuel poverty, one finding of the Hills’ report cannot be disputed. No matter how you measure it, fuel poverty is a serious problem which is only going to get worse. The report warns that the number of people in fuel poverty could increase to 8.5 million people by 2016, nearly doubling from 4.75 million in 2010.

Since 2010, the coalition’s approach has amounted to nothing more than a systematic withdrawal of support for the fuel poor, as one by one, the programmes which Labour used to cut fuel poverty by more than a million have been pulled away.

The root of fuel poverty is a complex and toxic mix of falling living standards, sky rocketing heating bills and poor quality housing. Therefore, if we are to end fuel poverty our solution needs to be as multifaceted as the problem.

First, we must improve the quality of our housing stock, so that we can lower the amount of energy people need to use. Currently, millions of people are spending hundreds of pounds on heating which rushes out of their home, while they are left in the cold. That can easily be fixed by improving the energy efficiency of those properties, locking the heat in and creating thousands of jobs in the process.

Unfortunately, the Government’s flagship energy efficiency scheme, the Green Deal, offers little help to the fuel poor and, according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s figures, the number of homes getting insulation will fall dramatically this year.

In addition, the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), which minsters say they are introducing to be the “game changer” for fuel poverty, will only help 250,000 households by 2023. That is nowhere near sufficient when you consider that fuel poverty increased by 300,000 households last winter alone. Labour would ensure all the ECO funding is given to help the fuel poor so that far more homes can be lifted out of fuel poverty.

Secondly, we need to reform our energy market so that it works in our interests, rather than those of the big energy companies. The record fine of £10.5 million handed out to SEE for mis-selling last month showed that we cannot carry on with business as usual. Too many consumers are stuck paying more than they need to on expensive tariffs, while the energy companies make millions in profit.

Labour would end the dominance of the big six energy suppliers by opening up the market to new entrants, increasing competition and driving down bills. We would protect the most vulnerable by forcing energy companies, as a starting point, to put all their customers over the age of 75 on the cheapest tariff.

Alongside that we would abolish Ofgem and replace it with a tough new regulator. One that has the power to make energy suppliers pass on reduced wholesale costs to their customers and stop bill payers being ripped off.

Finally, we have to do more to insulate against volatile imported fossil fuels by increasing and broadening the energy we generate at home. Ministers may rightly claim that they have no power over the wholesale price of gas, but they are not powerless over our energy mix. Increasing investment in renewables and low carbon generation now will protect us from wild price spikes in the future.

With fuel poverty rising daily, action is urgently needed. Instead of arguing over the definition, the Government should come forward with a properly thought out and resourced fuel poverty strategy. If they do not, and the numbers continue to rise, then, unfortunately, tackling fuel poverty may well become an impossible challenge.

Few politicians today at Parliament are able to say that they have played a part in establishing a strong electoral presence nationally for their respective parties. That accolade, achieved only through pioneering endeavours, is largely reserved for those politicians who are no longer alive.

But what about politicians who played their part in building up a local presence for their parties which eventually contributed to the establishment of a stronger presence nationally across Britain? Baroness Angela Harris of Richmond ranks as one such politician. After having moved to Richmond, North Yorkshire, in the late 1970s, Baroness Harris was presented with what can only be described as a feeble Liberal presence in a profoundly Conservative town. Undeterred, and determined to present to the people of Richmond a political alternative, Baroness Harris played a role in helping to lay a foundation which would eventually result in electoral success for the Liberals in Richmond.

In 1999, Baroness Harris was created a Liberal Democrat Life Peer, bringing with her to the House of Lords a vast knowledge on policing – from 1994 to 2001, she served as Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, and from 1997 to 2001 she was Deputy Chair of the Association of Police Authorities as well as having been a Justice of the Peace from 1982 to 1998. Baroness Harris’ abilities and integrity, together with how she elicits respect from across the political divide at Westminster, were recognised in 2008 when she was appointed as a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords. Furthermore, in 2010, she became the Chair of the Industry and Parliament Trust. Both of those positions she maintains today.

Baroness Harris discusses here the contribution she made to the Liberal Democrats in Richmond, the effectiveness of the business of the House of Lords, what her thoughts are on the composition of the Lords and why the Industry and Parliament Trust is playing an invaluable role in bringing together politicians and industrialists for the good of the UK.

Q: From having studied catering to working on an airline to serving on a major county council to sitting on various policing boards to currently being a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords, you have had a very diverse career. When and how did the journey into politics begin?

A: From about the age of five, I became aware of how my Father, who was a vicar in a rural parish in Lancashire, was absolutely fascinated with politics and was friendly with our local Member of Parliament, who was Sydney Silverman, the Labour politician who brought through the legislation to abolish capital punishment in Britain. Sydney would often come to the vicarage and talk to my Father in his study about politics, and it was through overhearing their discussions that I began to show an interest in politics. That was added to by how my Father would sit me on his knee and watch Richard Dimbleby on television talking about the political issues of the day.

It was only in later years that I realised my Father had been a very committed Liberal, from a left-wing tradition, because of his whole attitude to life and his principles; for example, one week he would invite the Bishop to our home for dinner while the next week the local tramp would dine with us – and the latter was treated in the exact same way as the former. So the whole ethos of my Father, and Mother, too, that everyone was equal in life, certainly cemented my ideas about politics in general but not, however, about policy specifically.

My first taste of politics came when I took on the role of Secretary of the National Union of Students at a catering college in Ealing, west London, where I was studying in the 1960s. That was followed by a dispute the NUS had with the Principle of the college in which I suggested to my colleagues the need to compromise and listen to what others were saying. That experience was my first ‘toe in the water’, so to speak, of being a political activist.

Many years later, in 1974, my then husband and I were having a meal with some friends at our home, which at the time was in Henley-on-Thames. I agreed wholeheartedly with the political views which were being expressed by our friends – a moment that I can only describe as having felt like seeing a ‘light on the road to Damascus’. I asked them what political persuasion they were and on hearing that they were Liberals, I responded by saying, “I’m a Liberal, too”. The next day I went to the local Liberal office in Henley and signed up as a member. From that point on, my political journey had begun! I soon started leafleting and canvassing, which was a ‘baptism of fire’ for me as I certainly had never knocked on people’s doors before to discuss politics with them!

After I married my current husband, we went to live in Richmond, North Yorkshire, in the late 1970s. Immediately, it became apparent to me that there was no organisation for the party there. In fact, there were only three members in the town that we knew of. So I took it upon myself to start things going, which began with setting up the standard Association of Liberal Councillors, which was led by Lord Tony Greaves. We all kept on organising until we formed a proper branch. And the rest is history. Interestingly, I was denigrated for a while because I was the first person to bring party politics to the local council. There was a by-election which I stood in as a Liberal candidate and as nobody else stood, I was automatically put on the town council. The other councillors were Independents. Even today, some of the older people in Richmond comment that party politics should play no role at a local level.

I eventually got elected to North Yorkshire County Council in 1981 but only after masses of hard work had been undertaken – from knocking on hundreds of doors to delivering hundreds of Focus leaflets to intensive campaigning. What worked in the favour of many, many Liberals across Britain was saying to people what we, as Liberals, wanted to do and what ought to be done, as opposed to just criticising what the council was doing. That certainly helped to keep me on the county council for twenty years – from 1981 to 2001 – in what is a deeply Conservative town. It also paved the way for me to become the first woman to chair the authority, which I did from 1991 to 1992.

Looking back at those years, it was how we ‘built up the party’. Richmond was just one of the many towns throughout the country which followed the ALC guidelines (they were the true leaders of our breakthrough) on how to organise to win – and it is to them that I pay tribute – along with the truly amazing work carried out by Trevor Jones in Liverpool who was aided and abetted by one Lord Chris Rennard. His incredible organisational skills took us from one stage to another and finally the launch pad from which we began to win many more constituency seats.

Liberals across the country had different ways of doing things and we wanted people to know about this instead of simply saying that Labour had done this and the Conservatives had done that – negative campaigning. The ALC was, as I said earlier, fundamental in getting our party to work at a grass root level and then to a council level and then to being able to support people standing as MPs. In retrospect, it was a very clear way forward to electing politicians to Westminster. What we achieved locally in the UK was pivotal to what the party went on to achieve, nationally, later on.

Q: Today, you are a Deputy Speaker in the House of Lords. How effective is the business there?

A: It is remarkably effective and I believe that this is partly demonstrated by how members of the public often comment to me that the House of Lords is much more deliberative and much more considered in its debate than the House of Commons. And that is because we, in the Lords, have time to deliberate, we have to scrutinise legislation which, of course, members of the House of Commons do not have.
The House of Lords is able to examine in great detail, with some of the greatest experts in Britain assessing the merits of proposed legislation. We amend, scrutinise and advise the House of Commons. That is how the legislative process is improved and we feel we do a good job. However, I do wish that the elected House would look at us with a little more circumspection.

Q: Do you believe that the Deputy Speakers have an adequate say over proceedings in the Lords?

A: As we are a self-regulating House, the deputy speakers do not have the same powers that Mr Speaker has in the House of Commons. And that is how the Lords wants it to remain. So the deputy speakers do not intervene and do not interfere; we let debate takes its course, ensuring that legislation is called when it comes up and that for the purposes of Hansard and our clerks, the business goes through properly.

Q: How do you rate the composition of the Lords in relation to it being able to adequately represent society?

A: I think it is difficult to say Yes to this question. Perhaps the Lords could do with some blue collar workers because they represent a very large part of society and a good down-to- earth approach to legislation and debate is what is required in our chamber. We have some of the greatest minds in the country sitting in the Lords but the composition needs to be broader, it needs to be deeper.

Q: You are the Chair of the Industry and Parliament Trust. Can you explain the history of this charity, its purpose and its current Trustees.

A: The Industry and Parliament Trust was established in 1977 with the aim of promoting mutual understanding between Parliament and the worlds of business, industry and commerce for public benefit. And the IPT seeks to accomplish that by encouraging dialogue between legislators and entrepreneurs from business in the UK.

Aside from myself, the present Trustees include politicians and business people such as David Amess MP, Brian Donohue MP, Baroness Joan Seccombe, Sir David Edward KCMG QC and David Gillespie, Chief Executive of RBS England and Wales.
We bring together Parliamentarians and industry so that they can learn from each other. The industrialists become a member of the IPT and they learn about the institutions of the Westminster Parliament and the European Union Parliament. And what do Parliamentarians get out of it? Well, they get attached to an industry of their choice and spend time with a company learning all about how it operates.

Parliamentarians then emerge with a much greater knowledge of that industry, which helps them when they are standing in Parliament talking about the difficulties and opportunities facing UK industry. The IPT is very much like a charitable establishment, and it works fantastically well. Industrialists, for example, are able to come to Parliament and discuss the difficulties which they are encountering with legislation and can offer advice to the appropriate Parliamentarians before Bills are created.

Given the UK economy’s current economic woes, we need both politicians and industrialists to understand some of the problems that both sides have, and the IPT provides the bridge to achieve this.

Q: What has the IPT been doing recently to try and reignite the UK economy?

A: In 2010, the IPT launched the Events programme with a series of discussions aimed at countering the issues of business risk and security. As a result of how popular those events were, the IPT developed a calendar of events in 2012 in which thirty-five Policy Breakfasts, Industry Dinners and Parliamentary Receptions were run, in comparison to the ten events hosted in 2010.

The Events programme comprises roundtable meetings, aided by magnificent research, which focus on a topical area of policy. Those discussions are facilitated by senior decision-makers from both Parliament and industry, which allow for extremely informative and candid talks to take place.

From June to July of this year alone, there will be ten events, covering subjects such as the business of Science, building a business in the UK and the role of Mutuals in Retail Financial Services.

I would urge my fellow Parliamentarians, in both the Commons and the Lords, to take it upon themselves and learn more about the IPT by visiting its website: http://www.ipt.org.uk

By Janine Ewen, Public Health and Human Rights Researcher

This April, a remarkable conference was held involving people from many levels of practice and a variety of professionals to mark the 1000 day countdown to the Millennium Development goals.

The Global Health and Beyond 2015 Conference, held in Stockholm, the Swedish capital, was above expectations. People left with knowledge about how the world has approached health in the wrong way….using a “top down” approach.

There were 1,300 delegates from across the world with an impressive speaker-list. The line-up included the passionate Richard Horton, Editor of the medical journal The Lancet, Hans Rosling, a Swedish epidemiology Professor made famous for his sensational YouTube talks on Global Health and development, and the dynamic NCD duo from New Zealand, Professors Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita. The audience saw the coming together of health, environment and development scientists and practitioners, politicians, economists and business leaders.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) knows that, as a world leading organisation, it is accountable for improving health. The “down up approach” has officially been presented as the secure way to deal with global health problems. One woman, working in the field of human rights in Stockholm, shouted loud and clear during the conference: “Write to Margaret Chan now! Tell her to start sharing the budgets held by WHO. Let’s share accountability and stop channelling responsibility so far up.” That sentiment was received favourably from a panel of senior professionals.

For those who work every day in global health, giving up is not an option now. Furthermore, efforts are finally going in the right direction. I am not suggesting, in any way, that the next 30 years are going to be easy. The changes are still to come, but now we know that our efforts are being counted and we are clear about some of our future focuses – women and violence and climate change, for example.

The conference allowed leading professionals to enlighten delegates on what they have been working on and the newly implemented Millennium Development Goal targets: more readily available Global Health data for all audiences, new campaigns targeting non-communicable diseases, improved communication at all levels, more readily available scholarships for educational programmes and much, much more.

On the second day of the conference, a workshop organised by the Swedish Society of Medicine, one of the oldest medical organisations in Europe, encouraged students to engage in detailed discussions about where we see future global health priorities going in terms of specific targets in health and if this is at all possible. Sweden has committed so much time and education to Global Health; I can only hope other countries will follow suit.

Another part of the conference saw students having an open discussion in a series of workshops. The main points raised were: stop looking at government positions and, instead, look at local level opportunities; reduce the gap altogether between poverty and extreme poverty; look at the bigger picture of economic development; look at the global health business model and see how it can work to generate fair and equal income in a faster way; and urge the international community to realise that extreme poverty reproduces itself.

The conference and workshop were informative and inspirational. Now it is time to share this news and empower each other.

Hailed by politicians, economists and bankers as the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression, the world is currently in the midst of an economic slump that has struck at all aspects of a country’s economic and social infrastructure. There have been losses on mortgages, credit cards, industrial and commercial loans, corporate bonds and sovereign bonds. Governments have experienced tumbling stock markets, endured the consequences of the collapse of large financial institutions and bailed out home-grown banks. Ordinary people have witnessed their cost of living drastically increase with energy costs soaring while unemployment has increased to dangerously high levels.

To meet those grave challenges, the ‘three wise men’ – politician, economist and banker – argue that a global crisis requires a global solution. That sounds logical if, of course, you subscribe to the standard narrative that there is a “global economic crisis” in the first place, with the emphasis on global.

Dr Liam Fox is one of the few politicians in the UK who does not subscribe to that. Member of Parliament for North Somerset and a former Defence Secretary, Dr Fox contends that there is no such thing as a “global economic crisis” pointing out that the value of the global economy has, in fact, grown dramatically over the last decade. Instead, the charismatic and no holds barred politician believes it is only the Western world that is engulfed by an economic crisis – a crisis, he asserts, is of its own making.

With the Coalition Government sticking firmly to its programme of spending cuts despite Britain having recently lost its top AAA credit rating for the first time since 1978, Dr Fox believes that the UK needs a radical policy rethink to benefit from the growth of the global economy and position itself firmly at the centre of the new world economic order. To accomplish that, he says that policy-makers in Whitehall need to realise that Britain, as indeed the rest of the West, has been trying to attain a standard of living which the British economy is incapable of sustaining. In short, Dr Fox argues that Britain’s economic problems do not lie in the general world economy…they reside at home.

What will come as a surprise to some, Dr Fox tells here how he understands the contemporary narrative…

Q: Do you believe the Government’s target for cutting the deficit is correct?
A: The progress of the Conservative-led coalition has been encouraging. A quarter of the deficit has gone; over a million private sector jobs have been created and we are delivering reform to the education and welfare systems that will make this country more competitive in the future. The Chancellor announced in his autumn statement in 2012 a switch from current spending to £5.5 billion of capital investment in science, roads and education, announcing a cut in corporation tax to 21 per cent by 2014 and a temporary, tenfold increase in the Annual Investment Allowance to £250,000. But we are in a coalition where our Lib Dem partners seem resistant to seeing the welfare budget cut further and where too few subscribe to the necessary supply side reforms that we must make if we are to inspire meaningful growth.

Q: Can you explain why the welfare budget needs to be reduced and what the financial rewards would be in doing so.
A: The wilful extension of ‘welfare-ism’ into the lives of millions of British people, where it has no place, needs to be tackled. We need to begin a systematic dismantling of universal benefits and turning them into tax cuts. Let me give you some examples of how I think we might remove benefits but then also offer tax cuts that encourage the sort of behaviour that will make our economy more sustainable. Firstly, we could scrap the taxation of income gained through cash savings in the bank. That represents barely £2.7 billion, or 0.5% of tax revenues. Such a move would directly benefit pensioners with savings, therefore paving the way for the means testing of the winter fuel allowance and other benefits enjoyed by pensioners who have personal wealth that should leave them well clear of the safety net of the welfare state. The saving set against the loss in tax revenue would make that a broadly cost neutral measure but it would ensure that pensioners who have made provision for themselves and who have felt the downside of low interest rates are protected.
Secondly, we could look at limiting access to housing benefit for the Under 25s. I believe that we could make it the exception that people under 25 qualify for housing benefit rather than the rule.

I would balance such a move against a Stamp Duty discount for home buyers under 30 so that the incredible cost of buying a house is reduced for those in the earlier part of their career. Making no Stamp Duty payable for young people on properties up to the £250,000 threshold would encourage young people to save during their twenties for the deposit on a property and encourage home ownership. Stamp Duty on property as a whole raises around £6 billion per annum but the amount of that raised through young first time buyers purchasing properties of under £250,000 will be significantly less. In order to make that work, we would need to ensure that the rules for eligibility for housing benefits made savings that outweigh the cost of the Stamp Duty discount.

I believe that any benefit that is given by the state needs to fulfil two basic tests. The first is what I would call the rainy day test, and the second I would call the Cascade test. Put simply, we need to encourage the principle that when people are able to do so, they should put something away to guarantee their future security. But people will be loath to do this unless sufficient proportion of what they put aside can be passed on to the next generation.

Otherwise those who genuinely make provision for themselves and their families will be penalised while those who set nothing aside will be given full support by the state, subsidised by the taxes of more responsible citizens.

Difficult though it is, balancing changes to the welfare system against tax cuts and tax relief has three enormous benefits. First – and most importantly – it leaves money in people’s pockets rather than siphoning it off for the Treasury. The second is a massive reduction in the number of people currently employed to take your money from you in tax and hand it back to you in the form of some benefit or another. It is costly and bureaucratic; involves too much time; too many forms and too many pointless regulations.

Q: Has globalisation been of net benefit to the British economy?
A: Yes, it has, because the global economy has expanded quite dramatically. In fact, the value of the global economy at the end of 2012 was about twice of what it was in 2000. The question, therefore, for policy-makers in Whitehall is how can the UK take advantage of those growing parts of the global economy? What is very interesting is that Britain’s trade with the world outside of the European Union is growing to the extent that about 58 per cent of our trade now goes to non-EU countries.
In general in the West, we are over-borrowed, over-taxed and over-regulated, and we need to tackle these things in order to make us more globally competitive because this is the key to the long-term prosperity of Britain and the standard of living we enjoy in it.

Q: Can the UK really afford Trident at a time of major public spending cuts?
A: The replacement for the current nuclear deterrent will take us from the mid 2020s to 2050. We know that North Korea has become a nuclear weapons state and we know that Iran is trying to become a nuclear weapons state, and we have no idea what the global security picture will look like in the future. Britain has an arrangement with the United States and France in which we will share the nuclear element of Nato’s policy, and we should continue to do this. I find it peculiar that we should regard it as “prohibitively expensive” to invest £20 billion in the capital costs of a deterrent that will provide us with a guarantee against nuclear blackmail for thirty-five years, while at the same time considering it acceptable to spend £9 billion on the Olympics for six weeks. It is a question of priorities and the amount of risk we are willing to take for our people. Those who do not wish to have the deterrent have a duty to tell us how they would protect Britain from the risk of nuclear blackmail.

Finally, it changes the terms of trade in the political debate. Instead of being challenged by Labour over which programme we would spend more on or which benefit we would support, we would be challenging them to tell us which tax cut they would reverse. We would be defying them to cut the budget that matters most – the domestic budget of hard working families up and down the length of Britain.

History will judge Gordon Brown and his disciples harshly. They spent with abandon, rolling out the Socialist vision of a big state. But much worse; rather than diminishing the reliance that individuals have on the state, they purposely pushed the drug of welfare addiction to more and more people, ensnaring even the affluent middle classes.

Today, we see the full destructive consequences of that behaviour with ordinary families paying too much tax so that it can be given back to them in benefits and credits, to no one’s advantage other than the army of bureaucrats needed to administer it. It is debilitating for society, demeaning for individuals and expensive for the taxpayer.

The expansion of welfare addiction is one of the most corrosive effects of socialism and it must not only be neutralised, but reversed.

The public understand what we are saying – that we cannot continue to live beyond our means and spend money that we do not have.

Now we need to go further and create our own political rules – Conservative rules – which will change the terms of trade in the economic debate and show Labour for the unreconstructed, big government, big spending, big taxing party that they are.

As Margaret Thatcher so memorably put it – the one thing you can count on with a Labour government is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s money. The trouble is, they have usually done a political bunk before the bills have to be paid, just as they have this time.

Q: Can the UK learn any lessons from Russia, China, Brazil and India, whose economies are performing very well in the world?
A: It is not true that the global economy is in recession. As I said earlier, the value of the global economy has more than doubled in the last twelve years. It is actually the Western economies that have a problem because they are trying to live beyond their means; they are trying to have a standard of living which they are not earning and this needs to be addressed. I believe it is too simplistic to say that a highly complex country like Britain can draw direct lessons from the BRICs. Europe, as a whole, has seven per cent of the global population, twenty-five per cent of global GDP and fifty per cent of global social spending. That is clearly an unsustainable position.

Q: You are known as an Atlanticist. Several leading US politicians, including President Obama, have come out and said the UK needs to stay in the EU. Do you agree?
A: The US government should sort out its own economic problems before trying to meddle in ours. We need to decide what is in Britain’s national interests. America needs to remedy its debt to GDP ratio – it is currently only six per cent away from their all time worst, which was in June 1946. In other words, what “Total War” took the US to in the twentieth-century, total mismanagement has taken them to in the twenty-first century. The US debt interest repayments this year is bigger than the amount of money that the Federal Government spends on education, transport and veterans’ affairs combined. Further to that, the Americans are making a $500 billion reduction in their defence budget over the next decade partly to enable them to pay what they owe to Moscow and Beijing. Welfarism has done more to harm the US than Communism ever did.

America needs to understand that debt is a strategic issue. Countries which become too heavily indebted ultimately find they are unable to protect themselves against external threats. The debt issue of the US is a problem for all of us because from a security point of view, we are so dependent on America providing the bulk of Nato defence. So in short, the Americans need to pay down their debts. However, the US is still running a huge annual deficit hence the debt is continuing to build up.

In the UK, we have the same problem albeit not to the same scale. Our debt interest repayments this year are close to £50 billion – this figure is bigger than the Defence budget, the Foreign Office budget and the overseas aid budget combined. That £50 billion figure is money for which we receive absolutely nothing from, and it is the equivalent of about £1,400 in tax for every taxpayer in Britain.

Q: Finally, what are your ambitions now in politics?
A: To sit in a majority Conservative Cabinet freed from the restrictions of Coalition. And sooner the better.