Money matters

29 June 2011 Last updated at 19:27 GMT By Dan Cairns BBC News Andrew Green, 14 (middle), handed in a letter protesting against the changes to legal aid Campaigners against proposed changes to the legal aid system say it will result in a "far more unfair society" and they took their campaign to Parliament on Wednesday.

Julie Green's son Andrew was born in 1997 with cerebral palsy from childbirth complications.

She says he would have a much lower quality of life if legal aid had not been available.

After initially being told her claim for negligence would fail, she managed to get funding for a specialist lawyer. An investigation was eventually launched that ended with a seven-figure compensation settlement.

Andrew's family can now afford to pay for the care and support he will need for the rest of his life.

"He's doing excellently - mainly because of the legal aid," said Mrs Green.

"We can take him to physiotherapy and speech therapy - things that he needs that we wouldn't have been able to do."

"The legal aid and winning the case has made his life bearable."

Andrew's family say they could never have afforded a lawyer out of their own pocket.

"Some of the bills were in the hundreds of thousands," said Mrs Green.

Campaigners gathered to highlight their concerns with the Justice Secretary's legal aid cuts

The chief executive of the Law Society, Des Hudson, was one of those supporting the group Sound Off for Justice at the event on Wednesday.

He said people like Andrew would find it much harder to enforce their rights under the changes.

"Ken Clarke needs to explain to those people who will no longer qualify for legal aid how will they get justice in his plan," he said.

"The courts need to be for every member of society, under these proposals they won't be."

Continue reading the main story

How on earth you're going to carry out a means test at three in the morning ”

End Quote Des Hudson, Law Society chief executive Mr Hudson also attacked other aspects of the bill, such as clause 12, which puts forward a change to the universal right to a lawyer when in police custody.

Under the powers, a person's right to free advice would depend on their financial resources and the merits of their case.

As well as a backwards step in terms of protection for the citizen, the Law Society CEO said, he also questioned the practicalities of such a move.

"How on earth you're going to carry out a means test at three in the morning when someone is stuck in Paddington Green police station I'm not sure," said Mr Hudson.

'It scares me'

Family law cases, such as divorce and custody battles, and employment and education disputes will also be largely excluded from legal aid.

Clare Hook, from London, used legal aid to stop her daughter being sent to a special needs school after she was identified as having "dyslexic-type difficulties" and being of "below average intelligence".

Convinced the decision was wrong, Mrs Hook challenged her local authority in a tribunal and the original diagnosis was found to be incorrect. Her daughter now goes to a more suitable school.

"My daughter wouldn't be achieving what she's achieving now if it wasn't for the legal aid system," she said.

"I don't know where she would have been today - and that scares me.

"It's drastically important for parents. I should have the same right as the local authority. They turn up with representation, they use the legal system - I should have the right as well if I can't afford it."

'Alternative needed'

The government has hit back at critics of the bill and said that legal aid has become bloated and "expanded far beyond its original scope".

It says many cases can be resolved without litigation, for example by using mediation, and points to the fact that the ?2.1bn legal aid bill is the largest in the world.

Former attorney-general Baroness Scotland says a re-think is needed

However former Attorney General Baroness Scotland, who agreed that cuts to the sizable legal aid budget were needed, but told the BBC the government should look for an alternative.

"I'm really worried about the way it's cutting so much in relation to people who are vulnerable," she said.

"I do think we can change. I know we have to - the Law Society and the Bar Council both accept that - just not these changes.

"They have to listen to what the professionals are saying, but also listen to the people who are in need of this legal support."

View the original article here

Stabbing burglars 'will be legal'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 12:17 GMT Justice Secretary Ken Clarke: "People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes"

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.

David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".

Mr Clarke has also said he is committed to axing indeterminate prison sentences despite opposition from many Tory MPs.

Mr Clarke has come under attack over proposed changes to sentencing policy but has denied making a series of U-turns on key elements amid pressure from Tory MPs and sections of the media.

He said indeterminate sentences - where prisoners can be held beyond their original release date if they still pose a danger to society - had been an "unmitigated disaster" since they had been introduced by Tony Blair

He suggested an alternative to them would be in place within two years.

Mr Clarke will defend his criminal justice agenda when proposed sentencing and legal aid changes are debated by MPs later - although no plans to change indeterminate sentences are currently included in planned legislation.

On people's rights to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was "constant doubt" about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this "much clearer".

Under the terms of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, homeowners who use "reasonable force" to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted, providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary.

'Absolute right'

But the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law.

"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.

Continue reading the main story

We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”

End Quote Ken Clarke Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or "getting their friends together to beat them up".

"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

The BBC's Political Correspondent Ross Hawkins said it remained to be seen how judges would interpret any change in the law when cases came to court.

Legal aid

Mr Clarke also made clear his determination to repeal indeterminate public protection prison sentences.

While some people had to stay in prison for an unspecified amount of time, he said the six-year old policy was "filling up" prisons and it was "indefensible" that some prisoners did not know how long they would have to serve and when they might be considered for release.

Ministers dropped plans to offer suspects pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity a 50% reduction in their jail sentences following a public consultation but Mr Clarke suggested there would be no backtracking on this matter.

Although he would consider carefully any changes, he said more prisoners should get "fixed-length" sentences.

Tory MP Philip Davies has said indeterminate sentences - 6,000 of which have been handed down - have reduced crime and Mr Clarke's stance on the issue "shows beyond all doubt that re-offending is not his priority".

A No 10 spokesman said the government was looking at the system "with a view to replacing it".

MPs will also debate the government's plans to cut legal aid in England and Wales at the second reading of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Under the plans, aimed at saving ?300m from the ?2.1bn legal aid bill, people will not be eligible for legal aid in a far broader range of civil cases than at present.

But they have come under fire from lawyers and campaign groups, who claim they will lead to more crime and penalise victims.

View the original article here

MP calls for improved hospice care

29 June 2011 Last updated at 12:02 GMT Great Yarmouth MP Brandon Lewis has called for improved hospice provision in Great Yarmouth For many years there has been a long running campaign to provide a hospice for Great Yarmouth, and now it has been taken to Parliament.

The town's Conservative MP, Brandon Lewis, secured a special debate at Westminster where he set out how serious the problem is.

"Norfolk, outside of Norwich, has no inpatient hospice provision, whereas other councils in the Eastern region have much better provision.

"For example Suffolk has two, one in Bury St Edmunds and one in Ipswich. But with a population of around 230,000 the Great Yarmouth and Waveney PCT area is significant in not having a hospice," Brandon Lewis told MPs.

End of life care in the area, he said, was either available at home or in hospital.

Special case argument

The gap exists despite attempts to help.

A local charity, East Coast Hospice, has plans to build a 10 bed hospice in the town and has so far raised half the money that's needed.

Brandon Lewis MP has been drawing ministers' attention to the hospice issue

Mr Lewis and his colleagues wanted to draw ministers' attention to the problem and hope there might be a bit of government help on offer.

Peter Aldous MP, in the neighbouring constituency of Waveney, also argued that their part of the region should be seen as a special case.

He said: "The East coast has long been a popular retirement area. I don't begrudge people moving into the area, indeed I welcome them, but the government must realise they do place an added financial cost on those providing health services which must be reflected in the funds made available."

Mr Lewis said there had been historic problems arguing the case for the need for hospice provision.

He also spoke about fundraising problems: another charity in the town, Palliative Care East, is also trying to raise money for end of life provision (but not inpatient beds) and that sometimes confused people who didn't know the difference between the two.

Westminster debate

The House was also told that just ?2.62 per person is spent in the Yarmouth and Waveney area on end of life care, one of the lowest figures in the country.

Not surprisingly, the Health Minister, Anne Milton, didn't have any more money up her sleeve.

In fact she didn't say much about the Great Yarmouth bid, telling the MPs to work closely with their local NHS.

But she did accept an invitation from Suffolk Coastal MP, Therese Coffey, to visit the area.

At least the MP succeeded in raising the whole issue on the Westminster stage.

Something may just happen.

View the original article here

Mounting concerns over legal aid

29 June 2011 Last updated at 09:50 GMT The proposals focus on legal aid in civil rather than criminal cases The government's plans to cut legal aid in England and Wales return to Parliament later, amid opposition from lawyers and campaigners.

The Ministry of Justice aims to cut ?300m from the ?2.1bn legal aid bill.

Under the plans, people will not be eligible for legal aid in a far broader range of civil cases than at present.

The Law Society said the bill would hit the "weak and vulnerable", but Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said legal aid funded some unnecessary litigation.

Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, ministers say they want to end legal aid for:

Private family law cases, such as divorce and custody battlesClinical negligence claimsEmployment and education lawImmigration, other than where someone is detainedSome debt, housing and benefit issues.

The government says that domestic violence cases will still receive legal aid and it intends to expand the definition to include mental and sexual abuse.

Mr Clarke has told MPs that the current system "too often encourages people to bring their problems before the courts, even when they are not the right place to provide good solutions and sometimes for litigation that people paying out of their own pocket would not have pursued."

He added that legal aid had expanded into areas beyond its original scope.

Continue reading the main story Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4

Whatever the unhappiness on the Tory right - at Ken Clarke's revised plans on sentencing - don't expect any further U-turns by the man in the Hush Puppies.

For a start, he is already facing a ?140m black hole in his budget after his decision last week to scrap plans to allow offenders up to 50% off their sentences if they plead guilty early.

The justice secretary simply doesn't have the money for any more concessions.

Secondly, temperamentally, Mr Clarke is in no mood for any more climbdowns. Indeed, one suspects he rather enjoys his bust-ups with the Tory right.

But there is also a bigger problem.

Mr Clarke strongly believes we send too many people to prison and that it costs too much.

On that basic belief he will not give ground.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said: "Lots of people think we should have more and more prisons, and more and more prisoners, and there's lots of lawyers who say we should spend more and more money on lawyers.

"[But] we are funding litigation, firstly unnecessarily in less serious matters where really the taxpayers shouldn't pay, and we're also funding litigation where adversarial lawyers are not the best way of sorting out a serious dispute or serious family quarrel."

But Linda Lee, president of the Law Society, said people who were denied access to justice may take the law into their own hands and "civil issues become criminal issues".

"The people who will suffer are the weak and the vulnerable," she said.

"It will be the babies seriously injured in accidents during their birth, for whom there will be no civil legal aid to secure compensation.

"It will be the woman looking after her disabled mother, who can no longer get advice when her carer's benefit is wrongly stopped.

"It will be the man whose ex-wife will no longer let him see his children."

The society, backed by other campaigners and charities, is publishing an analysis of the bill, which says it will end up costing more than it initially saves.

"The prime minister and the government want to reduce crime and the deficit," she said.

"If they force the bill through Parliament in its current form, they risk the opposite. The bill focuses on only short-term budget-gain and not the long-term consequences.

"Ministers must start making the link between cuts to civil legal aid and crime."

The Law Centres Federation says that at least 18 of 52 centres serving poor communities could be forced to close because of the cuts.

'Last resort'

On Monday, Baroness Hale, one of the UK's Supreme Court Justices, became the most high-profile legal figure to question the government's proposals.

In a speech she said the reforms would have a "disproportionate effect upon the poorest and most vulnerable in society."

Continue reading the main story Some asylum casesMental health casesDebt and housing matters where someone's home is at immediate risk Family law cases involving domestic violence, forced marriage or child abduction"If we really want to spend less on lawyers we have to be prepared to spend more on a very different style of court from the ones which we are used to," she said.

"We have to be prepared to spend money on initial advice and assistance schemes because that is where most problems are solved.

"Courts are and should be a last resort but they should be a last resort which is accessible to all, rich and poor alike.

"The Big Society will be the big loser if everyone does not believe that the law is there for them."

Bar Council chairman Peter Lodder said it was a "much-peddled myth" that the legal aid system in England and Wales was more expensive than elsewhere in Europe.

But the justice secretary said the system encouraged lengthy, acrimonious and sometimes unnecessary court proceedings at taxpayers' expense and that it could not be compared with other systems of legal aid around the world.

View the original article here

Greece passes key austerity vote

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:07 GMT The BBC's Jon Sopel describes the battle between the police and rioters as one of "cat and mouse"

The Greek parliament has voted in favour of a drastic package of austerity measures intended to save the country from defaulting on its debts.

The proposed tax hikes and spending cuts have been deeply unpopular with the Greek public.

A nationwide 48-hour strike is under way and violent clashes are continuing in the streets of the capital, Athens.

Greece is heavily in debt and the package is needed to win the latest tranche of a 110bn-euro (?98bn) loan.

MPs passed the measures by 155 votes to 138.

They will hold a second vote on Thursday aimed at law reforms that would allow the package to be implemented.

'No time to step back'

Ahead of the vote, PM George Papandreou urged MPs to approve the package by consensus.

Continue reading the main story

Total Greek debt

Greece is about to get a second bail-out from the EU, aimed at helping pay its debts until 2014. It also has to agree more cuts as part of the deal.

The economy

The Greek economy is in dire straits. Retail sales have fallen 18% since 2008 and manufacturing output has dropped 30% in the same period.

Working population

Greeks retire on average at 61. Tax evasion is widespread. Until 2010, public sector workers received two months extra pay a year in bonuses.

EU demands

To meet EU demands, Greece must sell 50bn euros-worth of public assets by 2014, equal to 20% of GDP. Public sector pay is being cut 15%.BACK {current} of {total} NEXT He had faced wavering support from within his governing Panhellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok), which has a slim majority, with 155 seats out of 300 in parliament. But in the end, only one Pasok deputy voted against the package.

Mr Papandreou says his austerity plan is the only way to get Greece back on its feet.

"We must avoid the country's collapse at all costs. Now is not the time to step back," he told deputies.

Were his 28bn-euro austerity package to be rejected, Greece could run out of money within weeks, as the EU and the International Monetary Fund want the measures implemented before they release more funds to help Greece pay off its vast debts.

Top EU officials welcomed the result as a "vote of national responsibility", saying it had pulled Greece away from the "very grave scenario of default" while paving the way for a second aid package.

"The country has taken an important step forward along the necessary path of fiscal consolidation and growth-enhancing structural reform," European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said in a joint statement.

'Unfair but necessary'

But Greek unions are angry that the government's austerity programme will impose taxes on those earning the minimum wage, following months of other cuts that have seen unemployment rise to more than 16%.

Continue reading the main story

No one in Greece believes the tax increases, lay-offs, privatisations will ever be fully implemented. ”

End Quote Gavin Hewitt BBC Europe editor Sporadic clashes are continuing between masked protesters and riot police outside parliament.

Shortly after the vote, dozens of rioters using ladders broke into the first floor of an office building near parliament on Syntagma Square before being driven out by police, witnesses said.

The vote covered the first part of Greece's austerity package, focusing on raising taxes to secure some 14.09bn euros over the next five years and introducing 14.32bn euros in public spending cuts.

The package is needed to secure the next instalment of the country's 110bn-euro bail-out to be released by the EU and IMF.

Ahead of Wednesday's vote, the governor of Greece's central bank, George Provopoulos, said a 'no' vote would be "suicide" for the country.

Thursday's vote is over the implementation of different parts of the package, such as tax rises and the sale of state assets.

Continue reading the main story June 29: Parliament approves new austerity package June 30: MPs to vote on details of implementing packageJuly 3: EU will sign off latest bail-out payment to Greece - 12bn euros - if both votes are passedJuly 15: Without the 12bn euros, Greece will defaultOnce passed, European officials will start to finalise the details of a second bail-out, worth an estimated 120bn euros, designed to help Greece pay its debts until the end of 2014.

The impact of the Greek vote would be felt worldwide said Herman Van Rompuy, president of the EU Commission, on Tuesday.

Recently appointed Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos acknowledged that the cuts were "unfair", though absolutely necessary.

But the main opposition leader, Antonis Samaras of the New Democracy party, said the thinking behind the austerity package was flawed, and that tax rates should be lowered rather than raised in order to stimulate the economy.

Send your pictures and videos to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124 (UK) or +44 7725 100 100 (International). If you have a large file you can upload here.

Read the terms and conditions

View the original article here

Auditors fault EU farm payments

29 June 2011 Last updated at 13:53 GMT A farm near Rennes: France gets the biggest portion of EU agricultural subsidies The EU's main audit body says agricultural subsidies - the biggest item in the EU budget - often go to people who do little or no farming.

A new report by the European Court of Auditors complains of deficiencies in the Single Payment Scheme (SPS), which distributed about 29bn euros (?26bn) of subsidies in 2009.

It says payments "have become divorced from current farming conditions".

The EU is considering how to reform its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The auditors have made various recommendations to the European Commission aimed at improving the SPS - the biggest area of spending in the CAP.

They say the SPS ought to direct aid to "active" farmers and provide more balanced funding so that a small number of big landowners no longer get the lion's share.

They also call for clearer definitions of land eligible for subsidies and of farming activities.

The report complains that the 17 EU countries applying the SPS use about 20 different variants of the payment scheme, making it too complex.

Absentee farmers

The SPS does not operate in 10 EU countries, which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. All 10, except Cyprus, are former communist countries and they use a different system of farm support, called SAPS.

The auditors say the SPS has encouraged farmers to respond better to market demand and has benefited EU agriculture as a whole.

But they say the way the scheme's beneficiaries were defined "permitted persons or entities not, or only marginally, engaged in an agricultural activity to benefit from SPS payments".

In some cases landowners have carried on receiving the payments even though their land is worked by tenant farmers who do not get the subsidy.

In the UK the auditors found some individual beneficiaries receiving up to 1m euros annually or even more in SPS aid without having any agricultural activity on their land.

The report also highlights examples of non-agricultural land qualifying for SPS payments in France, Italy and Spain.

The European Commission has said EU farm spending should no longer be based on previous subsidy levels for farmers.

But the commission believes subsidies are still needed to protect Europe's food supplies and rural diversity. The proposals are contained in an EU blueprint for farming beyond 2013.

View the original article here

MPs campaign to relax smoking ban

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:12 GMT The ban was introduced to protect pub staff and non-smokers Three MPs are joining forces with campaigners to call for the smoking ban in UK pubs and clubs to be relaxed.

Conservative Greg Knight, Lib Dem John Hemming and Labour's Roger Godsiff argue that the ban has had a devastating impact on the industry.

They want the law to be changed to allow pubs to create a separate room for smokers if they choose.

Thousands of UK pubs have closed in recent years and many have blamed the ban for the loss of business.

The smoking ban was introduced in England in July 2007. Scotland's ban was introduced in March 2006, followed by Wales and Northern Ireland in April 2007.

Ventilation

The Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign says that after three years, Scotland had lost 467 pubs (7.1% of the total estate), Wales 274 (7.3%) and England 4,148 (7.6%).

Campaigners also say working-men's clubs have been hit hard and many have closed or are struggling to survive.

They are arguing that the existing law is excessive and should be reviewed and relaxed to allow proprietors more choice about how they manage smoking at their premises.

Mick McGlasham, general secretary of the Clubs and Institute Union, which represents more than 2,000 working-men's clubs, said: "The ban was passed because politicians wanted to protect staff and non-smokers, but there is no reason why we cannot have a separate smoking room in what are private premises, especially with modern ventilation."

Other supporters of the campaign include the think tanks Progressive Vision and the Adam Smith Institute, and the campaign group Forest, which fights for greater freedom for smokers.

An event promoting the cause will be held at the Houses of Parliament on Wednesday with the aim of winning support from more MPs and peers.

Mr Knight, MP for East Yorkshire, said: "This is a unique opportunity for people to show how strongly they feel on this important issue.

"A modest change in the law, not a repeal of the smoking ban, is all we seek."

MPs are banned from smoking anywhere inside the House of Commons apart from on the terrace.

View the original article here

Bail suspects 'could be released'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 13:39 GMT The Association of Chief Police Officers said it had major concerns about the impact of the ruling Police are urgently reviewing the cases of thousands of suspects after a court ruling restricted their powers to bail them for further questioning.

The ruling - in a case involving Greater Manchester Police - means that suspects can be released on police bail for no more than 96 hours (four days).

At present, suspects can be released on bail pending further inquiries for weeks, or even months, in some cases.

Home Secretary Theresa May said it was a matter of "great concern".

The fresh guidance to police custody officers in England and Wales followed a ruling in the Hookway case by Mr Justice McCombe in the High Court in May.

It says officers will have to re-arrest suspects in order to detain or question them again, but only if they have "new evidence".

Guidance from Scotland Yard says that police will also no longer have the power to detain a suspect who breaches their bail conditions or fails to surrender.

'Verge of disaster'

Mrs May said the Home Office was considering whether to appeal against the ruling or introduce emergency legislation.

She said: "We're working with Acpo at the moment and looking at a number of possibilities as to how we can advise the police on this issue.

"We are conscious of the concerns this judgment has brought in terms of operational policing."

Continue reading the main story Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent

For over 25 years, since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it's been customary for officers to release suspects on police bail while they complete their investigations. Sometimes this can take weeks or months.

When the suspect returns to the police station he or she might be detained for further questioning, re-bailed pending additional inquiries, charged or released without action.

The ruling in the Hookway case has thrown this long-established practice into disarray. On the face of it, it means police have four days at most to bring charges - regardless of whether suspects are in custody or not.

The reality is that in thousands of cases this won't be possible. Police, under the new interpretation of the laws, will be powerless to prevent suspects walking away from a police station, with no conditions attached, unless they can find new evidence to arrest them again.

No wonder the Home Office and senior officers are urgently seeking a remedy.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said it was "a matter of grave concern".

"Because it seems this has immediate effect, it will disrupt vital ongoing investigations and hugely hamper the police in their job," she said.

"Police officers I have spoken to are deeply alarmed at the implications for criminal cases they are working on right now."

West Yorkshire Police said it has 4,260 suspects on police bail.

The force's Chief Constable Norman Bettison said the ruling meant suspects would have to be charged or released without further action once 96 hours had elapsed.

It now has no provision to carry out further inquiries with suspects on bail.

He said: "It's on the verge of a disaster now because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is, 'What do we do, boss?'

"I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go."

He added: "We are running round like headless chickens this morning wondering what this means to the nature of justice.

"My holding position with my officers is that I can't believe this is what was envisioned."

He has told his officers to continue working to their usual guidelines until further advice is issued.

The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said one senior police figure had described the implications as "dire" as it would have far-reaching effects on serious and complex cases where police needed time to gather evidence and speak to witnesses, such as in rape allegations.

'Chaos and concern'

Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) lead spokesman on the issue, Essex Chief Constable Jim Barker-McCardle, said the ruling had a "profound impact" on the way police investigate crime.

He said: "Unless overturned, the indications are its effect is that police can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release."

And he told BBC Radio 4's the World at One the ruling had "thrown the whole of policing into the air".

"There's chaos and concern out there. We're working hard at the moment with the Home Office and the home secretary and the CPS to make sense of this, and at the moment, sense to me looks like legislation, and potentially emergency legislation," he said.

The ruling was made by the district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court, who said the detention clock continued to run while the suspect was on bail.

The case concerned a murder suspect, Paul Hookway, who was arrested in November. Police had been given permission to detain him for 36 hours but he was released after 28.

Five months later, police applied to the courts to extend the period of detention from 36 hours to the maximum of 96 hours. But the district judge refused, saying that the 96 hours had expired months ago.

Greater Manchester Police sought a judicial review, but the ruling was upheld at the High Court.

After the ruling, the Crown Prosecution Service and Acpo sought expert legal advice which stated that it set new case law and had to be adhered to.

The force is now seeking leave to appeal at the Supreme Court.

View the original article here

Tory Boy takes on Sir Stuart Bell

29 June 2011 Last updated at 12:26 GMT John Walsh in cartoon form from the Tory Boy film Sir Stuart Bell has won seven elections for Labour in Middlesbrough, all with healthy majorities.

He is not amongst the MPs who made outrageous expense claims, and he has been knighted for his services to parliament.

So why then is one film maker claiming his new documentary could force his resignation and a by-election?

John Walsh stood for the Conservatives against Stuart Bell in last year's general election.

He trailed in third, but during that time he filmed the whole process of being selected and fighting the seat.

Pretty hopeless

He was an unlikely Tory candidate.

The documentary maker was a lifelong Labour supporter. He says he became disillusioned with the party and decided to respond to David Cameron's decision to open up selection to non-party members.

If you went to most towns, I'm sure you would find plenty of people who would say they never see their MP”

End Quote Richard Moss Political editor, North East & Cumbria

He was selected at his first attempt to fight Middlesbrough - a pretty hopeless assignment for any Tory.

But Walsh says he quickly discovered that all was not well in Middlesbrough.

His film - Tory Boy - claims that Stuart Bell is effectively an absentee MP. According to the documentary, he doesn't hold surgeries, and spends considerable amounts of his time living in France. During the film John Walsh encounters people who say they don't see much of him in the town.

For Walsh then the conclusion is clear - Stuart Bell is not representing the people of Middlesbrough properly, and should be unseated.

Genuinely funny

To aid that campaign, he has held a free screening of the film in one of the town's cinemas.

I was there to see it, so just how powerful was his case?

Sir Stuart Bell has been elected as Middlesbrough's MP seven times

The first thing to say is that it is a good watch. Walsh is an engaging character, and the film is genuinely funny.

It is astonishing that he was selected as a Conservative candidate so quickly.

And he certainly comes across people in Middlesbrough who feel they are not being represented properly.

But I'm not sure he quite nails down a case against Stuart Bell.

Constituency surgeries

Most of the evidence he presents is anecdotal. If you went to most towns, I'm sure you would find plenty of people who would say they never see their MP, or even don't know who they are.

It's cheap publicity-grabbing - the people of Middlesbrough spoke and Tory Boy never got anywhere”

End Quote Cllr Charlie Rooney Labour leader, Middlesbrough Council

I have heard people complain about Stuart Bell before, and the difficulties in contacting him (John Walsh tries and fails on a number of occasions to ring him in the film).

And it is true that Stuart Bell has not held open constituency surgeries for 15 years.

But he says that was due to being attacked during one. He says he visits constituents in their homes instead and responds to individual enquiries.

There is no legal requirement for MPs to hold surgeries.

The raw statistics do suggest he's not the most active MP in parliament, but then different MPs operate in different ways.

No connection

And John Walsh doesn't help his case with some of the content in the film.

He dwells on one particular allegation that local Labour party members taunted a Conservative councillor after she lost her husband.

It sounded an unpleasant incident, but as she makes clear, it happened 37 years ago and has no connection to Stuart Bell at all.

John Walsh also accuses Sir Stuart of failing to represent his constituents properly when Corus announced the decision to mothball the steelworks in Redcar.

Yet if you do an internet search you can find references to the MP attending rallies to save the steelworks, and commenting on the closure.

And then there is John Walsh's motivation. Is he a genuine Conservative convert or a film maker looking for a good subject? I'm not sure.

Real disengagement

His focus appears to be on Bell, rather than providing any solutions to Middlesbrough's problems.

But I do think the film has something to say about the state of democracy more generally.

"Tory Boy" John Walsh tries to get hold of Sir Stuart Bell on the phone.

There appears to be real disengagement amongst the people he meets in Middlesbrough. It is a constituency with a history of low turnouts.

And his attempts to channel any anger about Stuart Bell fail because the Conservatives run such a low key campaign. Walsh ends up spending much of his time helping out a candidate in the neighbouring target seat of Middlesbrough South.

I'd guess the Lib Dem campaign wasn't over-resourced either. Safe seats can get neglected by all parties.

But ultimately it is democracy that has the final say. Stuart Bell did lose significant amounts of support in 2010, but he still claimed 46% of the vote, and secured a seventh term with a majority of 8,689.

Middlesbrough film screening

John Walsh came third with 6,283 votes. The people of Middlesbrough did decide they wanted Sir Stuart to remain as their MP.

The converted Conservative hopes his film can achieve what he failed to - unseat Stuart Bell.

There were dozens of people wishing him well in that endeavour at the Middlesbrough screening.

But I suspect he was preaching to the converted.

Others are dismissive. Cllr Charlie Rooney, who leads the Labour group on Middlesbrough Council, said: "It's cheap publicity-grabbing. The people of Middlesbrough spoke and Tory Boy never got anywhere."

The real challenge will be whether Tory Boy can engage the large numbers of people in the town who clearly do feel disengaged and disillusioned with politics, and persuade them to do something about it.

Personally, I am not expecting an imminent by-election.

But I do hope John Walsh's film gets a wider audience, as some silliness aside, it is a thought-provoking insight into the way our political system works or doesn't work on the ground.

Stuart Bell has not so far directly responded to Tory Boy. But he is seen in the film criticising what he saw as John Walsh's "disreputable" general election campaign.

View the original article here

Miliband urged to end unpaid work

29 June 2011 Last updated at 13:55 GMT By Victoria King BBC News Ed Miliband has pledged to campaign for all interns to get the minimum wage Campaigners are calling on Ed Miliband to end unpaid internships within the Labour Party after one of his MPs was criticised for recruiting a volunteer.

Intern Aware have sent a letter to him signed by the heads of Young Labour and the National Union of Students.

They said it was hard for him to "talk about social mobility with a straight face" while the practice continued.

While running for Labour leader, Mr Miliband pledged to campaign for all interns to get the minimum wage.

On Tuesday, the BBC revealed that Labour MP for West Ham Lyn Brown is advertising for a "voluntary Westminster worker" to join her office and carry out duties including policy research and dealing with constituents.

According to her official website, she has "campaigned tirelessly for a living wage for all" since her election in 2005.

Intern Aware accused her of "hypocrisy", but she told the BBC that although she would like to pay all her staff, she lacked sufficient resources. She said the volunteer would get expenses.

Internship pledge

Labour said the recruitment of staff was a matter for individual MPs, but Intern Aware have written to Mr Miliband urging him to take a stand.

During the Labour leadership contest, he signed the group's pledge promising that if elected, he would campaign for the Minimum Wage Act to be fully enforced to cover interns.

He said he had not personally taken on any unpaid staff and had encouraged other colleagues within his party to do the same. He added that Labour would "look closely at this issue in our policy review".

Mr Miliband also attended the launch party for the Speaker's Parliamentary Placements scheme, which is being set up to offer paid internships with MPs to a small number of applicants from poorer backgrounds.

Ben Lyons, co-director of Intern Aware, said: "Ed Miliband likes to talk a lot about social mobility, but now it's time for him to put that into practice.

"He says he will be fighting the next election on increasing opportunities for young people, but he doesn't need to wait until then.

"He must keep his pledge and end unpaid internships in the Labour Party. As leader, it is clearly within his powers to give instructions to MPs in his own party, and it is damaging for our democracy if the only people starting careers in politics are those who can afford to work for free."

The open letter to Mr Miliband has been signed by Susan Nash, chair of Young Labour, and Liam Burns, head of the National Union of Students.

Another signatory is Louise Haigh, the Unite union representative for MPs' staff and interns in Parliament.

She said: "I want to see interns paid the living wage but at the absolute minimum, their entitlement under law - the National Minimum Wage.

"If people are workers they should receive the NMW or MPs open themselves up to being hauled through the courts.

"The party must take a strong line on this and force its MPs to pay their workers properly and clearly differentiate between workers and volunteers."

Mr Miliband's competitors for the Labour leadership, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and his brother David, all joined him in signing the Intern Aware pledge.

View the original article here

Probe into banned activist in UK

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:12 GMT Sheikh Raed Salah was detained on Tuesday evening An investigation has been launched after a leading Israeli-Arab activist managed to enter the UK despite being banned.

Home Secretary Theresa May said Sheikh Raed Salah had been excluded from the UK and the UK Border Agency was taking steps to remove him.

But his solicitor said Sheikh Salah had "no knowledge" of a travel ban and had not tried to conceal his identity.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of incompetence.

Sheikh Salah has Israeli citizenship and is the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

The movement, whose stated aim is to advocate Islam among Arab Israelis, offers education and social services and promotes a Palestinian nationalistic stance.

Sheikh Salah was detained by police late on Tuesday evening in London after he returned from a meeting in Leicester, where he had addressed a 500-strong audience.

Islamic leader Sheikh Raed Salah addressed a 500-strong audience in leicester yesterday before being detained last night in London.

The Home Office said he had been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks and was not allowed into this country because his presence would be "not conducive to the public good".

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) said he was the leader of a legitimate political organisation.

PSC director Sarah Colborne said he rejected all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism.

"This is a legitimate organisation, which Israel has never moved to ban," she said.

"Before coming to Britain, he faced horrific allegations of anti-Semitism, which he completely refuted.

"He has clarified his position of being opposed to all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism against his own people, the Palestinians."

'Incompetent sham'

Mrs May said although the government did not normally comment on individual cases, in this case it was important to do so.

"I can confirm he was excluded and that he managed to enter the UK. He has now been detained and the UK Border Agency is now making arrangements to remove him.

"A full investigation is now taking place into how he was able to enter."

But Labour's Yvette Cooper said the government's rhetoric of being tough on border controls had been "exposed as an incompetent sham", amid planned cuts of 5,000 UKBA jobs.

"The Home Secretary needs to urgently explain why an individual banned from this country was allowed to walk in and instead of being stopped at the border had to be pursued by the police instead.

"Only this week Theresa May said that coming to this country was a privilege and she would refuse entry to Britain of anyone that she deemed not conducive to the public good. Her words now ring very hollow indeed."

Israel's Arab community numbers about 1.4 million, some 20% of the population. It includes Palestinians who remained in Israel after the 1948 establishment of the Jewish state and their descendants.

View the original article here

UK told to keep Somali criminals

29 June 2011 Last updated at 08:24 GMT Somali government troops (pictured) are fighting Islamist forces for control of Mogadishu The UK must not deport two Somalis convicted of serious crimes because to do so would endanger their lives, the European Court of Human Rights says.

The Strasbourg judges said the UK's duty to protect the two from torture or inhumane treatment was "absolute".

The pair, aged 24 and 42, were served with deportation orders after being convicted of burglary, threats to kill, robbery and dealing in class A drugs.

The ruling sets a legal precedent for 214 similar UK cases involving Somalis.

Abdisamad Adow Sufi (24) and Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi (42) are being held at immigration detention centres in the UK.

In 2007 they appealed to the Strasbourg court, arguing that they would face death or serious injury if the UK deported them to the war-ravaged capital Mogadishu.

The seven judges accepted that there would be a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if the pair were sent back to Mogadishu.

The court ruling said the judges "reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was absolute, irrespective of the victims' conduct".

"Consequently, the applicants' behaviour, however undesirable or dangerous, could not be taken into account."

UK 'very disappointed'

The court told the UK to pay Mr Sufi 14,500 euros (?13,000) and Mr Elmi 7,500 euros (?6,716) for costs and expenses.

The UK still has three months in which it can appeal for the case to be re-examined.

The UK Border Agency said it was "very disappointed" at the ruling and was considering its legal position.

"This judgment does not stop us continuing to pursue the removal of foreign criminals who commit a serious crime," it said in a statement. "Nor does it find that all Somalis are in need of international protection."

Somalia has not had a functioning national government for 20 years.

The Islamist al-Shabab group controls much of southern Somalia and has been fighting interim government forces for control of Mogadishu in recent months.

View the original article here

Downing St plays down Bercow spat

29 June 2011 Last updated at 15:22 GMT Mr Bercow often steps in to tell MPs to quieten down Downing St has insisted the PM is "entirely" happy with the way John Bercow runs PM's questions - after he stepped in to cut Mr Cameron short.

The Speaker stopped a sustained attack by Mr Cameron on the Labour leader Ed Miliband by calling the next question.

And after another lengthy answer he told the PM the session was "principally for backbenchers".

The BBC's Vicki Young said Mr Cameron appeared to glare furiously at the Speaker when he was interrupted.

It comes amid growing tension between Downing Street and Mr Bercow over ministers briefing the media on policy issues before they tell Parliament.

In recent weeks, Mr Bercow has summoned several ministers to the Commons to answer urgent questions from the Opposition after stories had appeared in the press.

Cut off

But our correspondent said Mr Bercow was now prepared to go further and grant emergency debates, if government ministers continued to ride roughshod over Commons protocol in this way.

Continue reading the main story Vicki Young Political correspondent, BBC News

The most startling moment of Prime Minister's Questions was David Cameron's clash with the Commons Speaker, John Bercow.

Mr Cameron was in full flow, accusing the Labour leader of being afraid to ask questions about strikes and the economy, when the Speaker interrupted and called the next question.

The prime minister appeared to stand his ground at first, glaring furiously at the Speaker before resuming his seat on the front bench and muttering with George Osborne. Both men looked incandescent.

One tweeter has described it as a "Paddington Bear Hard Stare".

Afterwards Downing Street insiders tried to play the incident down saying they were "entirely happy" with the way the Speaker chairs question time.

Emergency debates can last for three hours and take precedence over all other business - potentially causing serious disruption to government legislation.

The Speaker, who chairs debates between MPs, is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons.

Mr Bercow was a Conservative MP before being elected to the politically impartial role in 2009 - in which he was backed by many Labour MPs.

It is his job to keep order in the Commons and he often remarks at prime minister's questions that the public do not appreciate rowdy behaviour in the Commons. He also cuts MPs short for long or irrelevant remarks during debates.

But at prime minister's questions on Wednesday it was Mr Cameron's turn to be cut off.

Angry glare

It started when the PM responded to Ed Miliband's suggestion that people up and down the country were asking: "What is he doing to our NHS?"

Mr Cameron chose to respond in lengthy fashion by criticising Mr Miliband for not raising the issue of Thursday's public sector strikes - and raising the issue of Greece's debt crisis.

As he suggested Mr Miliband "has to talk about the micro because he can't talk about the macro" Mr Bercow cut in with: "We're very grateful" and called Conservative MP Guto Bebb to ask a question.

As MPs roared, Mr Bercow told them: "Order, order. I appeal to the House to reflect on what the public thinks of this sort of behaviour."

Journalists in the Commons press gallery spotted Mr Cameron shooting an angry glare at the Speaker.

As the half-hour session drew to a close, the Speaker interjected again as the prime minister answered a question about rising crime from Labour's Clive Efford, who urged him to "get a grip in London".

In his response, Mr Cameron went through various crime-related policies the government had put into place, then went into a lengthy explanation about the Metropolitan Police's "Operation Target" - as he finished listing its successes, the Speaker appeared to reprimand him, saying: "Order, prime minister's questions is principally for backbenchers."

Mr Bercow has clashed with some Conservative MPs - including Tory chief whip Patrick McLoughlin and backbencher Mark Pritchard - since becoming Speaker. Others, such as Nadine Dorries, have been critical of him.

However he has also won praise for being far more willing than his predecessor to grant urgent questions, which let MPs force ministers to come to the Commons to make statements.

View the original article here

Francie Molloy gets new position

28 June 2011 Last updated at 10:53 GMT Sinn Fein MLA Francie Molloy has been voted in as the assembly's principal deputy speaker.

The post was created in May when the DUP and Sinn Fein jointly signed a motion for the new position.

It had been widely speculated that Mr Molloy, who is currently deputy speaker, would be appointed to the position.

Last week UUP leader Tom Elliott questioned Mr Molloy's fitness for the new position.

The controversy surrounded remarks Mr Molloy made during a committee meeting at Stormont.

He told members that when Linfield manager David Jeffrey saw him and party colleague Barry McElduff in a restaurant last year, he walked out.

The new role has been opposed by the Ulster Unionists and SDLP who say it will unfairly elevate one deputy speaker above the other two.

SDLP MLA John Dallat and Roy Beggs from the Ulster Unionists hold the other deputy speaker posts.

View the original article here

Labour MPs 'to cross picket line'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 15:09 GMT Mr Miliband has criticised the strike but did not mention it in Wednesday's exchanges Labour MPs will be expected to cross picket lines during Thursday's public sector strike, the party has said.

A spokesman for leader Ed Miliband said Labour MPs would "come to work as normal" in Parliament despite a pension strike affecting up to 750,000 workers.

David Cameron taunted the Labour leader over the issue in the Commons, saying he could not raise it as he was "in the pocket of the unions".

Mr Miliband has criticised the strike but did not mention it at PMQs.

Asked whether Labour MPs would cross picket lines outside Parliament and other public buildings, a spokesman for the Labour leader said they "will be coming to work as normal".

The PCS Union has said some of its members who work inside Parliament, in roles such as security staff, will picket outside the building.

'Cannot talk'

On Tuesday, the Labour leader and First Minister in Wales Carwyn Jones said his cabinet ministers would not cross any picket lines but would continue with their work across Wales.

Continue reading the main story A funded final salary schemeNormal retirement age is 65, minimum age is 55MPs can contribute either 11.9%, 7.9% or 5.9% of their ?65,738-a-year salaryPayments are increased in line with the retail prices indexAccrual is capped at two-thirds of an MP's final salaryThe coalition agreement included a commitment to consult with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on "how to move away from the general final salary pension system"The prime minister's official spokesman said "low numbers if any" of the 200 civil servants that work at Downing Street are expected to take part in the strike.

Teachers, civil servants and other public sector workers are due to stage a one-day strike in protest at plans to raise the station pension age, raise employee contributions and link pension values to the generally lower consumer prices index (CPI) rather than the retail prices index (RPI).

Mr Cameron said there had been "not a squeak" from Mr Miliband or other Labour MPs on the issue of the strike or reforms to public sector pensions during the 30-minute weekly session of prime minister's questions.

"Clearly this is the issue that they simply don't want to talk about on the other side of the House," he said.

He added: "Because they (Labour MPs) are all paid for by the unions they cannot talk about this issue."

The prime minister said the proposed strike action was "irresponsible" as talks between ministers and unions were continuing and the government's proposals were fair to workers and fair to the taxpayer.

'Mistake'

The leader of the opposition often tends to quiz the prime minister on an issue dominating that day's headlines.

David Cameron at PMQs: 'Not a squeak on strike and pensions'

But Mr Miliband decided to use the six questions he is allotted each week to attack Mr Cameron over what he said would be a huge rise in NHS bureaucracy as a result of government reforms and the cost of making NHS staff redundant.

The Labour leader has made his views on the industrial action clear, however, saying on Tuesday it was a "mistake" and "should not go ahead" as it would inconvenience parents and children.

He has urged both sides to continue negotiations, arguing that public sector pensions do need to be reformed. But he has criticised the government for what he said was their "provocative and reckless" handling of the negotiating process.

'Up to individuals'

Labour MP John McDonnell has called on Mr Miliband "to do what is right" and support those taking action.

Mr McDonnell, who chairs the PCS parliamentary group, said he was "disappointed" by the Labour leader's opposition to the strike.

He said many of those affected by the proposed pension changes were natural Labour supporters but that the party was leaving them with nowhere else to go and would continue to haemorrhage votes as a result.

The GMB, which sponsors a large number of Labour MPs, said it was "up to individuals and their consciences" about whether they choose to cross picket lines.

Up to 5,000 schools in England will either close entirely or partially on Thursday and the UK Border Agency has said some travellers could face disruption at airports and other points of entry and should consider making alternative arrangements.

View the original article here

Leadership test?

29 June 2011 Last updated at 08:29 GMT By Norman Smith Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4 Ed Miliband does not want to be seen as being on the side of the strikers Labour leader Ed Miliband has now come firmly off the fence over this week's public sector strikes.

His message to the unions - call off your strikes.

It represents a significant hardening in his position and one that is certain to infuriate many public sector workers.

Previously Mr Miliband had confined himself to describing the strikes as "a mistake" and "a sign of failure".

His aides say there's already been a lot of criticism from aggrieved union members over the internet of his decision to tell the unions to return to the negotiating table.

But Mr Miliband's view is that the strikes risk backfiring.

Far from helping to galvanise public support behind public employees, Mr Miliband fears it will lose them the crucial backing of public opinion.

The Labour leader also believes the unions should await the outcome of the current negotiations with the government.

Leadership test

His team know this is a risk. Many in the unions will view it almost as an act of betrayal for a Labour leader to turn his back on them when they are engaged in such a key struggle over pensions.

Many Labour MPs may also be deeply uneasy about his decision to so publicly disown the strikes - even given his criticism of the government's "provocative" approach to the talks.

Indeed many Labour MPs have adopted a much more equivocal stance - refusing to condemn or condone the strikes.

But for Mr Miliband's this is not just about the rights and wrongs of this week's proposed strikes - it's also about his leadership.

The hope is his move will be seen as further evidence that he is prepared to take a lead, be brave and tell his own supporters some uncomfortable truths.

It follows on from his decision last week to tell his MPs he wants to scrap their right to elect members to the shadow cabinet.

There is a view too that it is important following the labour leadership election in which he was so heavily dependant on union support - for Mr Miliband to show he is not in the pocket of the unions.

There is also a more pressing political reason for Mr Miliband's stance.

He knows Thursday's strikes are likely to be greeted by a frenzy of angry headlines. Mr Miliband absolutely does not want to be pigeon-holed as on the side of the strikers.

And yet, despite all the political calculations behind his warnings to the unions, it is a significant moment and a test of his leadership.

For while many of his supporters will be delighted that he has taken such a robust stance. Others will be appalled.

It may strengthen his leadership.

But equally it could weaken it.

View the original article here

Services need 'prevention' focus

29 June 2011 Last updated at 11:55 GMT By Andrew Black Political reporter, BBC Scotland The report said communities and people must have a greater say on the future of services More than a third of public cash in Scotland is spent on social problems which could have been prevented in the first place, a new report has warned.

A major investigation into the future of public services has warned they will "buckle" without more preventative measures to tackle inequality.

Former Scottish TUC general secretary Campbell Christie was asked by the government to undertake the work.

He has urged ministers to begin moving ahead with the reforms.

The Scottish government said it would look at taking them forward, while council umbrella group Cosla said it was moving immediately to implement the recommendations, regardless of the SNP's timescale.

In its final report, the commission on the future delivery of public services warned that, with spending not expected to return to 2010 levels for 16 years, major reforms were needed.

It said problems were being compounded by an increase in demand for services, concluding: "Unless Scotland embraces a radical, new, collaborative culture throughout our public services, both budgets and provision will buckle under the strain."

Continue reading the main story Brian Taylor Political editor, BBC Scotland

There are potential flaws aplenty. The focus of the report is upon early intervention to prevent the emergence of social problems which will, otherwise, land the state with big bills later down the line.

In short, they say, let us try harder to prevent families from requiring social care, to prevent people from requiring hospital treatment, to deflect young people from an aimless life which ends in prison.

So much, so obvious, you might remark. But the Christie Commission suggests a range of practical ideas as to how this over-arching ambition might be mandated within the public sector.

The commission said that, despite moves to drive out inequality and increased spending levels since devolution, the problem had in some cases become worse.

It concluded Scotland's cycle of deprivation and low aspiration must be tackled with a shift in spending priorities to the prevention of social problems.

The approach, said the commission, could cut demand - and big bills - in health, social care and justice.

The body has also called for the tougher auditing of public spending and community involvement in designing services.

"It is estimated that as much as 40% of all spending on public services is accounted for by interventions that could have been avoided by prioritising a preventative approach," the commission said.

"Tackling these fundamental inequalities and focusing resources on preventative measures must be a key objective of public service reform."

Among its recommendations for reform, the commission, said:

Services must be designed with, and for, people and communities - not delivered "top down" for administrative convenienceScarce resources must be maximised by using all resources from the public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as people, groups and communitiesNew legal requirements would require public bodies to take preventative action on tackling inequalitiesUnderlying causes of inter-generational deprivation and low aspiration must be targetedBetter, long-term planning must be undertaken on policies like universal entitlements, such as free bus travel or care for the elderlyPublic spending watchdog Audit Scotland should be given a stronger remit to improve performance and save money

Mr Christie said the way ahead was clear, adding: "The process of reform must begin now, and I would urge the Scottish government to act quickly and decisively and to use our recommendations as a route map for the difficult journey ahead.

Continue reading the main story

Scottish government is ambitious to maintain and improve our public services within tightly constrained resources”

End Quote John Swinney Scottish finance secretary "This is not solely a matter of fiscal necessity but a once-in-a-generation opportunity to implement radical reforms that will provide improved public services that are better focused on the needs of the people they seek to support."

STUC general secretary Grahame Smith said there was "little" in the report to help the Scottish government with more immediate spending cuts, but welcomed its long-term vision.

"The commission clearly identifies the public sector as a driver not just of fairness but of growth - a million miles away from the view of the right wing and big business that public services are a drag on the economy," he said.

Cosla said the report laid out "a journey that local government is both willing and able to travel".

"The report contains recommendations and it is traditional to wait for a government response before any such recommendations are implemented," said the organisation.

"However, Cosla supports this report to such an extent that we will not be waiting for a government response - instead we will be moving forward immediately to do what we can at our own hand to act in the way that the commission suggests."

'Significant challenges'

Welcoming the commission's report, Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney said the Holyrood government's track record of working at a local level and boosting efficiency savings had provided a "firm foundation" to work from.

"In the current economic climate and with increasing demand on the services that matter most to the people of Scotland, the need to improve service delivery and redesign services to secure greater value for money is pressing," he said.

"Our public services face significant challenges - unprecedented cuts to the Scottish government budget from Westminster, long standing inequalities, increased public expectations and an imperative to cut carbon emissions.

"However, the Scottish government is ambitious to maintain and improve our public services within tightly constrained resources."

Labour finance spokesman Richard Baker, said: "The SNP made a number of big promises during the election such as no compulsory redundancies in the public sector.

"That pledge is already starting to unravel so ministers, in the light of this important report, need to explain how they plan to reshape our public services for the better now."

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie, added: "After years of dodge and delay, we now have an answer for the SNP on how to pay for the best possible public services.

"We now need immediate action as every bit of further delay will only hurt those who need these services most."

View the original article here

1,500 protest at wind farm vote

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:09 GMT By Iolo ap Dafydd BBC Wales environment correspondent Councillors are being asked to vote to put windfarm development on hold.

Around 1,500 anti-wind farm protesters have arrived ahead of a special Powys council meeting calling for an immediate review of development policy.

Councillors are meeting at Welshpool livestock mart rather than the council chamber.

The motion before them urges the Welsh Government to request a moratorium on all wind farm applications.

Earlier this month First Minister Carwyn Jones said he wanted to see developments restricted.

He has also called for powers to be devolved from Westminster to Wales.

The Technical Advice Note (Tan) 8 policy was introduced in 2005 as guidance on wind farms. It allows councils to decide on wind farms up to 50 megawatts in size.

All Powys councillors are being asked to meet and vote in Welshpool livestock mart on Wednesday rather than at County Hall in Llandrindod Wells so more people can attend.

By 1500 BST around 1,500 protesters were already on site to lobby the meeting.

A vote is expected at 1530 BST.

Continue reading the main story

To offer an assurance of an upper limit, when that upper limit is the object of everybody's hatred, is no consolation to anybody at all”

End Quote Neville Smith Windfarm opponent Large screens have been erected for the protesters to watch proceedings.

'Upper limit'

The policy saw the government in Cardiff establish seven Strategic Search Areas (SSAs) in Wales.

The SSAs were devised to corral all wind farm development into specific areas, rather than allow turbines to be put up across Wales.

There is one area in the north and another in west Wales, two in the Heads of Valleys region and three in mid Wales.

Thousands of Montgomeryshire residents blame this policy for the 15 current wind farm applications in Powys.

Tan 8 allows councils to refuse or allow permission for wind farms up to 50 megawatts

If all are approved, that would add more than 600 turbines to the 216 already there.

Following a demonstration outside the Senedd last month, Mr Jones announced an "upper limit" of turbines to be allowed in Tan 8 areas.

He said his government opposed new steel pylons - planned by the National Grid - to export power generated by wind energy into the wider electricity infrastructure.

Retired barrister Neville Smith, who lives near Berriw, opposes the Tan 8 policy and says he is not comforted by the first minister's announcement.

"I can see the chap is in trouble and I can see how he's looking for some sort of breathing space," he said.

"But to offer an assurance of an upper limit, when that upper limit is the object of everybody's hatred, is no consolation to anybody at all.

"Carwyn Jones's statement was ineffective."

The wind energy's trade body also wants a review.

"We don't feel it's successful," said Maria McCaffrey, Renewable UK's chief executive.

"We had great hopes for it... essentially (it said) if you build a wind farm here you are going to get an easy passage through planning, and are likely of success... this has not happened.

"Does it get our vote? No. Is it going to work without comprehensive review? No."

View the original article here

Councillors 'oppose benefit cuts'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 05:06 GMT By Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News Ministers say the cost of housing benefit to the taxpayer has nearly doubled in a decade More than two-thirds of Conservative and Lib Dem councillors oppose a key plank of the government's housing benefit changes, a survey suggests.

Almost half of Lib Dems polled by the charity Shelter also feared the plans would lead to a rise in homelessness.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said "scare stories" about rising homelessness were nonsense.

The government wants to cut the housing benefit bill and change a system it says is unfair.

The survey suggests that 68% of Conservative councillors and 80% of Lib Dems object to plans to limit rises in local housing allowance rates to the CPI (consumer prices index) measure of inflation from 2013 - rather than setting them in relation to local rent costs.

It also suggests that 49% of Lib Dems agree that housing benefit reductions made homelessness in their areas more likely, and over half opposed the scale of cuts to the benefit.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats on Richmond-upon-Thames council, Stephen Knight, said: "It's really, really pernicious, nasty stuff from this government and they're clearly Conservative-led policy changes, but in my view Liberal Democrat MPs and ministers have not done nearly enough to prevent these from coming through either."

Continue reading the main story

Instead of complaining, responsible councils should be working to effectively implement these policies”

End Quote Iain Duncan Smith Work and Pensions Secretary David Skinner, a Conservative councillor in Coventry and a director of a housing association, said he supported action to cut the deficit and thought some changes to housing benefit were necessary.

But he said he was "somewhat overwhelmed" by the pace of change in housing benefit and other policy areas.

He added: "People in ordinary jobs living ordinary lives, I thought [they] would be confused by the sheer pace of change - and worried.

"So my comment, in effect, was although I'm a loyal member of the Conservative Party and I support the Conservative Party, I didn't think frankly that we were doing as good a job as we might have done on explaining why and in good time."

The government says the housing benefit bill has almost doubled in the past decade.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "The failure of the last Labour government to reform housing benefit has left us in the absurd situation where some benefit claimants can claim over ?100,000 a year to live in large houses in expensive areas.

"This is unacceptable when hard working individuals and families are struggling either to find affordable private rents or pay their mortgages.

"Scare stories that housing benefit changes will force thousands of families from their homes are nonsense and are causing unnecessary distress.

"A small number of people may have to move and we are providing local authorities an additional ?190 million over the next four years to smooth the transition.

"Instead of complaining, responsible councils should be working to effectively implement these policies, and recognise that we are trying to get people off benefits and into work, and drive the cost of the benefits bill to taxpayers down."

Benefits cap

Shelter's survey suggests that 67% of Liberal Democrat councillors believe reductions to housing benefit will lead to significant knock-on costs for councils - and that local authorities do not have sufficient resources to cope with extra pressure on public services.

But it says only one in five Conservatives oppose the scale of cuts to housing benefit.

The vast majority of Labour councillors opposed the government's plans.

ComRes surveyed 1,299 councillors across England, Scotland and Wales online, between 1 and 13 June 2011.

Shelter, which commissioned the work, has opposed the government's housing policies.

Another Lib Dem councillor, Chris Naylor, from Camden, said a survey by his council suggested the reforms would see the majority of landlords in the borough reducing their rents.

Simon Hughes, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, will hold a meeting with Mr Duncan Smith on Wednesday to discuss a ?26,000 overall cap on the benefits families can claim.

Mr Hughes, who is the MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in south London, has said the government should act to limit the impact of the cap on different-sized properties on Londoners.

View the original article here

Councils to keep business rates

29 June 2011 Last updated at 12:20 GMT Nick Clegg: "We have to keep on talking and sort it out"

Councils in England will be allowed to keep the business rates they collect rather than paying them into Treasury coffers, under new government plans.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg said councils had no financial incentive to boost growth and prosperity in their areas.

But he said changes would be "fair" and poorer areas would not get less money than they do under the current system.

Business rates are charged on most non-domestic premises, including warehouses shops, offices, pubs and factories.

They are calculated and collected by local authorities, and at present are put into a central pool before being redistributed to all councils in the form of a grant.

The grant is used to help fund local services like the police and fire brigade.

'Over-centralised'

The government hopes the change will make councils less dependent on Whitehall funding. According to last year's spending review, total central government contributions to local government will fall by 26% in real terms over four years.

Mr Clegg told the LGA conference in Birmingham that the tax system was currently "over-centralised" with just 5% of the tax take being raised locally.

"We will localise the retention of business rates. I think everybody here can agree that with hindsight centralising rates back in 1988 in the Local Government Finance Act was a mistake. It set back meaningful localism by a generation."

Continue reading the main story

By localising the retention of business rates you are given a dramatic new incentive to work with business and with others, in order to boost economic prosperity in your areas”

End Quote Nick Clegg He said councils now generated less than half of their income but if they had the power to retain business rates, that could rise to 80% or more, he said in a speech to the Local Government Association.

"At the moment you have no financial incentive to promote economic growth and prosperity in your area. You are not rewarded for success.

"By localising the retention of business rates you are given a dramatic new incentive to work with business and with others, in order to boost economic prosperity in your areas."

Poorer areas, particularly in the north, fear that the localisation of business rates could leave them much worse off because they lack a large economic base.

But Mr Clegg said any new system would be fair.

"More deprived areas will not lose out. From the start, no authority will receive less funding when the new arrangements are introduced than they would have done previously.

"The new system will start on a level playing field. How far you progress from there is entirely up to you."

Councils will also have the power to borrow against business rate income to fund local development.

In his speech to the LGA on Tuesday, the body's new chairman, Sir Merrick Cockell, said localising business rates would be "the biggest kick-start to our economies" that the government could give.

He said it would allow communities to benefit directly from their own economic activity and development.

The deputy PM also unveiled plans to roll out so-called community budgets across England after a successful pilot scheme.

The aim of the policy is to help councils manage families with multiple problems who require interventions from a number of different bodies, including the police, social services, doctors and courts.

The government argues that by giving councils one central budget for each of these families, waste can be eliminated and individuals can be cared for better.

View the original article here

Fee move for non-Scots students

29 June 2011 Last updated at 14:53 GMT English students tend to gravitate towards the universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews Scottish universities will be able to charge annual fees of up to ?9,000 for students coming to study from other parts of the UK, under new plans.

Mike Russell, the Scottish education secretary, outlined proposals to allow higher education institutions to set their own fees, which would be capped.

The move came after English universities got the go-ahead to charge up to ?9,000 for tuition.

Residents of Scotland studying at home will not pay any fees.

Amid concerns over "fee refugees" heading north of the border to study, Mr Russell said Scottish university places for Scottish students must be protected.

But NUS Scotland strongly attacked the government's decision, claiming Scotland could become the UK's most expensive place to study for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In a statement to the Scottish Parliament, the education secretary said he had launched a consultation on legislation allowing universities to set their own fees for students from the rest of the UK from 2012-13.

The move would then be followed by new legislation to cap fees at ?9,000 a year from 2013-14 onwards.

Continue reading the main story Seonag MacKinnon BBC Scotland education correspondent

A key objective of the charge is to help buoy the finances of Scottish universities.

There's concern about the future funding gap for Scottish universities as some English universities almost triple their fees to up to ?9,000 a year.

A second objective is to stop a potential flood of "fee refugees" to Scotland seeking to escape the university fees in other parts of the UK.

There is a question mark over how much money the increased charges will raise.

South of the border, there has been much publicity and resentment in some quarters over the outline plan to charge residents of Scotland nothing but charge others thousands of pounds.

This is believed to be one reason why the number of applicants to Scottish universities from residents of England slumped by 15% this academic year.

The education secretary is also trying to establish a legal way of bringing in charges for EU students resident in the EU but outside the UK.

Their numbers have greatly escalated in recent years as word has spread that, like Scots, they pay no fees in Scotland.

Mr Russell said Scottish universities would be free to set fees of between ?1,800 and ?9,000 for other UK students, but said he expected levels to be lower than those south of the border.

A working group set up by the Scottish government and higher education body Universities Scotland has pointed to an average figure of ?6,375.

Mr Russell said: "Scotland has and always will welcome students from all over the world to our universities.

"However, the decisions being taken in England could threaten the quality and competitiveness of our universities.

"We cannot allow Scotland to no longer be the best option and instead be known as the cheap option - we also must protect places for Scottish students."

Mr Russell added: "We are providing clarity for potential students from the rest of the UK that making the positive choice to study in Scotland will not cost more than it does in their home nation."

NUS Scotland president-elect Robin Parker claimed students from the rest of the UK could pay up to ?36,000 to study in Scotland, compared to ?27,000 in England.

Accusing the Scottish government of hypocrisy, he said: "The SNP rejected a market in tuition fees for Scottish students prior to the election, only to introduce one immediately after for students from the rest of the UK.

"This seems incredibly unfair, especially when the SNP have talked so much about the importance of access to university based on ability not ability to pay.

"We are not at all convinced that increasing fees is required to manage demand. And by introducing a market into education in Scotland, we're seeing some of the worst aspects of the proposals down south come to Scotland, directly against our tradition of fair access to university. "

The SNP has given a commitment not to re-introduce fees for residents of Scotland studying in their home country, either on an up-front or graduate basis.

The move is backed by Scottish Labour, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Greens, but not the Scottish Tories.

Mr Russell also announced a review of the way Scotland's colleges are run, led by Prof Russell Griggs, chair of Dumfries and Galloway College's governing body.

View the original article here

Complaining to BBC 'too complex'

29 June 2011 Last updated at 00:13 GMT The peers said the BBC had a "singular role in the life of the country" The BBC's complaints process is "convoluted" and "overly complicated", a group of peers has said.

The Lords communications committee said it was hard for viewers, listeners and web users to know whom to contact. and proposed a complaints "one-stop shop".

Part of the problem was that the roles of the BBC Trust and watchdog Ofcom overlapped, the report added.

The BBC Trust said new chairman Lord Patten was looking at the issues as part of his review of BBC governance.

'Grisly'

The Lords committee said the BBC had a "singular role in the life of the country and... provides an extraordinary public benefit", but there were a number of areas in which it could be improved.

Peers said the BBC should set out a clear explanation of its complaints process on its website, so that licence fee payers knew what they could expect.

There should also be a single point of contact for all complaints, regardless of whether they applied to television, radio or online material, they said.

Giving evidence to the committee, former BBC chairman Lord Grade described his experience, since leaving his role, of complaining to the corporation as "grisly" due to a system he said was "absolutely hopeless".

Part of the problem, the peers said, was that there was an overlap in the jurisdiction of the BBC Trust - the BBC's governing body - and the broadcasting watchdog Ofcom.

And despite Ofcom having the final say in all other areas, the BBC Trust has responsibility for matters of impartiality and accuracy.

This situation - in which the BBC was "judge and jury in its own case" - was undesirable and should not continue, the peers said.

The committee called for all complaints to be made to the BBC in the first instance, followed by a right of appeal to the BBC Trust and a subsequent final appeal to Ofcom if the complainant was not happy with the trust's decision.

The media regulator should also have final responsibility for impartiality and accuracy, it added.

'Structured reality'

Committee chairman Lord Inglewood said: "Ultimately, the BBC needs to be accountable to those who use and pay for it, at the same time as having the independence of its journalism, broadcasting and creativity protected from outside political interference."

The committee also warned that BBC creativity must not be "stifled by overly bureaucratic compliance culture".

And it said the BBC - and other broadcasters - must make greater efforts to help viewers discern "what is reality, reconstructed and constructed footage".

Potential issues could arise because of the increased use of digital technology and the growth of "constructed reality" or "structured reality" programmes, it added.

A BBC Trust spokesman said: "We welcome the committee's report and we note their recommendations on the BBC complaints process.

"This, and a number of other issues the committee have raised, are being looked at as part of Lord Patten's governance review. The committee's recommendations will feed into the conclusions of the review."

View the original article here

Q&A: Public sector strikes

28 June 2011 Last updated at 11:25 GMT Tens of thousands of public sector workers, many of them teachers, are expected to strike on Thursday, in England and Wales. But what are they striking over, who will be affected and what rights do parents have if their child's school is to close for the day?

Why have the strikes been called?

Because of proposed changes to pensions for public sector workers, and spending cuts. It's mainly about pensions - as people live longer, the cost of funding public sector pensions is "unsustainable", says the government. It wants most public sector workers to:

pay more into their pensionswork for longerand accept a pension based on a "career average" salary, rather than the current final salary arrangement

Unions, however, say the proposals will leave their members paying more and working longer for less. Both sides have been in negotiations.

So why strike now?

The teaching unions wanted to ballot their members before the summer break. The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union, was also able to move quickly. It takes much longer - up to 17 weeks - for the larger unions, such as Unison or Unite, to organise a ballot of their millions of members. They are, however, planning coordinated strikes at the beginning of October, if they get the backing of their membership.

Who is taking part in Thursday's strikes?

Four unions in total. Three teaching unions - the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and the University and College Union (UCU) - have voted to strike. They have 200,000, 160,000 and 120,000 members respectively. They will be joined by up to 300,000 members of the PCS, who include air traffic controllers, coastguards, prison workers and customs and immigration staff. The PCS union also represents staff at the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentres.

What impact will I see?

Schools: The NUT says up to 85% of schools in England and Wales will be partially or completely closed, affecting millions of pupils. State schools will be worst hit, but union members at private schools are also expected to walk out. A knock-on impact will be felt in some workplaces, as parents stay at home or work from home to look after children whose schools are closedUniversities: The UCU says it expects "significant disruption" at about 350 colleges and 75 "new" universities - those founded after 1992. Lectures may be cancelled - although many universities' summer terms have already endedCriminal justice: The PCS says courts and probation services could be disrupted, and policing could be affected. Prison officers are also expected to protest.Other public services: The union also says it expects customs and passports services to be affected, and driving tests to be cancelled. Services at Jobcentres and tax and benefit offices are also likely to be disrupted, but the government insists it has "rigorous contingency plans in place to ensure essential services are maintained"Could Thursday's strikes yet be called off?

Yes. But it is very unlikely. Both the unions and the government appear to be in no mood to back down.

Who supports the strikes?

Not the government. Ministers insist talks over the pension changes are still ongoing and therefore it is unjustifiable to take action now. For Labour, shadow chancellor Ed Balls has suggested ministers are deliberately "picking a fight" with unions so they can subsequently blame them for the poor economic recovery. But Labour leader Ed Miliband has said the strikes are a "mistake" and urged both sides in the dispute to keep talking to try to reach an agreement.

Is the action limited to 30 June?

At present yes, but more strikes are already being threatened for the autumn. The UK's biggest public sector union, Unison - which represents 1.3 million people working for local authorities, the NHS, colleges and the police - has not yet balloted its members on industrial action. But its leader, Dave Prentis, has said that would change if they continued "to be treated with disdain".

What if my child can't go to school and I have to work?

Parents' rights depend on their employment contracts. If you are an employee, you have the right to take time off to care for a dependant in an emergency - but given that most schools have given several days' notice of closures, this is unlikely to apply in many situations. Other options are to

make use of flexible working arrangements, such as working from home or altering working hourstake a day's paid leave, orask for a day's unpaid leaveWill parents be able to volunteer to help at schools?

Education Secretary Michael Gove has suggested this, but unions have raised concerns. Parents who have passed a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check for the school in question - for example if they already volunteer there regularly - would be able to help. But CRB checks usually take several weeks. However, government guidance says CRB checks are not necessary for volunteers for one-off events, such as outings or sports days, as long as the volunteers are not, at any point, in contact with children without supervision by a member of school staff. So in theory schools could use parents, even without CRB checks, to help with activities under the supervision of a single teacher - which might, for example allow them to group several classes together in a school hall. But the National Association of Head Teachers has warned its members against using volunteers in place of trained staff, even if they have the necessary CRB documentation, because of a host of issues ranging from first-aid training, to insurance, to behaviour management.

How can prison officers take part if they are not allowed to strike?

Prison officers are banned from striking because it could compromise the safety of prisons. But the Prison Officers Association is telling members to join "protest meetings" during their lunch hour outside jails in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These meetings will be a largely symbolic act - but the union could cause some further disruption and difficulties if members insist on not entering jails until their shifts start.

Is this a general strike?

No. This week's action has been compared by at least one union leader to the general strike of 1926, but really it doesn't come close. The majority of unions will not be taking part, and while large numbers of teachers and lecturers will be involved, the PCS is only the fifth largest union in the UK. In 1926, up to 1.75 million people went on strike, crippling transport networks, shutting down printing presses and interrupting food supplies.

What's happening with public sector pensions?

The government wants public sector workers - bar the armed forces, police and fire service - to receive their occupational pension at the same time as the state pension in future. Many can currently receive a full pension at 60. The state pension age is due to rise to 66 for both men and women by April 2020. Under government plans, workers - on average - would have to pay 3.2 percentage points more in annual pension contributions phased in between 2012 and 2014. But low-paid public sector workers on less than ?15,000 would not face any increase in contributions and those earning less than ?18,000 would have their contributions capped at 1.5%. There have been some claims and counterclaims over what this means for public sector workers.

Why are these changes needed?

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has suggested that the gap between contributions and pensions in payment would double over the next four years to ?9bn. One key reason for this is that people are living for longer. The government commissioned Lord Hutton, the former Labour Work and Pensions Secretary, to investigate the situation. Many of its proposals are drawn from recommendations in this report.

What do the unions want to happen?

Trade unions have voiced strong opposition to their members paying more in the form of contributions to their pension. It is not clear how opposed they are to changing schemes to a career average version, or to the plans to raising the retirement age to 65 or 66. They were also unhappy that the government announced its plans for pensions while negotiations with the unions were ongoing.

How can it be settled?

It's going to take some pretty major concessions from one side or the other - something which, at present, doesn't look likely. A leaked memo from the TUC, which represents the majority of unions, seen by the BBC, shows they don't believe the current talks can come to any agreement on changes to the pension age, to contributions or accrual rates. Instead, they say, the way forward must be for each group of workers - nurses, teachers, local government and so on - to work out their own arrangements on a scheme by scheme basis. For its part, the government has said there is "room for dialogue" and talks are being held in good faith, but ministers have not made public any specific areas which might be open to compromise.

Don't public sector workers get paid less because their pensions are better?

This is a myth, according Lord Hutton. His interim report says that "there is no evidence that pay is lower for public sector workers to reflect higher levels of pension provision". Although 85% of public service employees contribute to a pension, he said that these pensions were far from "gold-plated", with the average pension in payment currently at a "modest" ?7,800 a year. About half of public service pensioners received less than ?5,600 a year. Some private sector schemes are worse than this, but he said that should not affect public sector pensions. In the private sector only 35% of workers sign up for a pension.

How are other countries tackling the pensions shortfall?

There are many different systems in place across the world. In France, for example, public sector workers typically retire before 60, but there are plans to bring them in line with the private sector. In Chile, there are mandatory defined-contributions in public and private sectors. Employees pay 10% of their earnings, with top-up benefits for the poorest 60% of pensioners.

View the original article here