CONTENTS

September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
CONTENTS
6
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW:
CATHY NEWMAN
Cathy Newman talks with Marcus Papadopoulos about
the extraordinary state of UK politics at present
10 COLUMNS:
John Coulter argues that Ireland could once again come
under Westminster’s jurisdiction, while Jon Craig looks
at the standings of the Conservative, Labour, SNP and
Liberal Democrat parties
12 SPECIAL SECTION:
CHINESE AMBASSADOR
China’s Ambassador to the UK discusses how Anglo-
Chinese relations can grow and prosper
26 LEADERS:
Patrick McLoughlin, Jeremy Corbyn, Angus Robertson
and Tim Farron set out their respective visions and plans
for the UK
42 CORRIDORS:
Michael Fallon on the striking power of the British
military
Kerry McCarthy considers the circular economy
Chris Grayling sets out his priorities as Transport
Secretary
Diane Abbott on how to save the NHS
Sir Roger Gale contends that the Hunting Act is at the
core of Conservative values
88 SPOTLIGHT: BRITAIN IN THE
WORLD: IS THE FOREIGN
OFFICE FIT FOR SERVICE?
Emily Thornberry, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Tom Brake,
Crispin Blunt and Daniel Kawczynski
96 SPECIAL SECTION:
CYBER CRIME
Nigel Huddleston, Christian Matheson, Andrew
Bingham and Lord Brian Paddick discuss how to
counter cyber crime
118 DIARY:
Nigel Nelson
Publisher & Editor:
Marcus Papadopoulos
Editorial Advisor:
Keith Richmond
Editorial Board:
Esther McVey
Lionel Zetter
Paul Routledge
John Bretherton
Terry Ashton
Michael Pownall
Managing Director:
Sheenagh Baxter
Design and Production Consultant:
Jonathan Allinson
Production Assistant:
Brendon Marsh
Website Manager:
Kris Apro
Finance Director:
Senel Mehmet
Editorial and Subscriptions:
Tel: 0797 237 4529
Advertising: Tel: 020 3179 1186
Published by:
First Publishing Limited
c/o Government Knowledge
Suite 4 Metropolitan House
38-40 High Street
Croydon CR0 1YB
editor@firstpublishing.org
www.politicsfirst.org.uk
© First Publishing Limited
ISSN 2046-4258
Company number: 7965752
The views expressed in Politics First
are not necessarily those of First
Publishing Limited and its directors.
Working together with:
Printed in the UK by
The Magazine Printing Company
using only paper from FSC/PEFC suppliers
www.magprint.co.uk

politics first | In this Issue
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
With bilateral trade between Britain and
China in 2015 having reached $78.5
billion, Liu Xiaoming, Ambassador of the
People’s Republic of China to the Court
of St James’s, writes on pages 12 and
13 of this edition of Politics First on how
Anglo-Chinese relations can be taken to
the next level.
Be sure to read the article!
WELCOME
Dr Marcus Papadopoulos,
Publisher and Editor of Politics First
Welcome to the first issue of the new-look,
relaunched Politics First!
Inside, you will see that the magazine has
been redesigned from beginning to end, making
it more clinical and more luminous for readers,
enhancing the magazine’s reputation as being an
indispensable read for anyone in Whitehall and
Westminster, as well as for anyone interested in
politics in general.
What has not changed, however, is the
editorial, which continues to be brimming
with top-class interviews and articles by
policymakers and other movers and shakers
in British politics. And Politics First remains
committed to its conviction that politics is
serious and should therefore be covered in a
serious manner.
Now, what better edition to unveil the newlook
Politics First for than the autumn party
conference one!
As a result of the decision of the British public
to vote for Brexit this June, UK politics finds itself
in the most unstable and unpredictable state
since the Second World War. The only certainty
at the moment at Westminster is uncertainty.
In the Leaders section, Patrick McLoughlin,
Jeremy Corbyn, Angus Robertson and Tim
Farron lay-out their vision for Britain and
describe how they will achieve this.
Cathy Newman, co-presenter of Channel 4
News, gives us an exclusive interview on the
current state of British politics and how the
four main parties are responding to the fallout
from Brexit.
The Spotlight of this edition is on the Foreign
Office, which is particularly pertinent given
Brexit. The question of whether the Foreign
Office is fit for service is discussed by Emily
Thornberry, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, Tom
Brake, Crispin Blunt and Daniel Kawczynski.
It is a privilege and honour to have His
Excellency Ambassador Liu Xiaoming,
Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China
to the Court of St James’s, writing in a special
section on how relations between Britain
and China can develop further, politically,
economically and culturally.
In the Corridors section, Michael Fallon
contends that the British military remains a force
capable of punching above its weight, while
Angela Rayner discusses how radical Islam
and right-wing extremism can be effectively
countered in UK schools. Dr Paul Monaghan
argues that human rights is an inconvenient
reality for the Conservative Government, and
Alistair Carmichael calls for prison reform in
order to effectively tackle crime in the long-term.
As with every edition of Politics First, there
are many more articles and interviews in this
one, focussing on contemporary and critical
issues of the day.
I hope you enjoy reading this edition, and I
hope you like the new design of the magazine, too.
That just leaves me to wish you a productive
and pleasurable time at the party conferences
in Bournemouth, Liverpool, Birmingham and
Glasgow, and I look forward to seeing you there.
Be first to get Politics First with guaranteed delivery on the day of publication. Why not treat a friend with a gift
subscription to keep them up-to-date with key issues of the day.
Yes, I would like to subscribe to Politics First for only £20 per annum
YOUR DETAILS
Title...............Forename.....................................................................Surname.....................................................................
Address................................................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................Postcode....................................................................
Phone.....................................................................................Mobile....................................................................................
Email.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Cheques should be made payable to First Publishing Ltd and sent to:
Politics First, First Publishing Limited, c/o Government Knowledge, Suite 4 Metropolitan House, 38-40 High Street, Croydon, CRO 1YB
04
05

politics first | Exclusive Interview
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
CATHY
NEWMAN
Reading the current state
of British politics
Cathy Newman, Co-Presenter of Channel 4
News, talks with Marcus Papadopoulos about
the extraordinary nature of politics in the UK
at present and how the four main parties are
responding to this uncertainty
Who would have thought, during last year’s autumn
party conference season, that, one year on, there
would be a new prime minister, another Labour
leadership election and a UK preparing the ground
for leaving the European Union? Without a doubt,
this is the most tempestuous period in Britain since
the Second World War, and there does not appear to
be an end in sight. The old expression “expect the
unexpected” has been taken to a whole new level in
UK politics – and all within the period of just a few
months.
Questions of seismic proportions have erupted over
what lies in store for the UK and its political parties.
Will Brexit be implemented by Prime Minister Theresa
May? If not, will a full-blown civil-war break out in the
Conservative Party? Will the British economy remain
the powerhouse that it currently is, should the UK
leave the EU? Is Scotland’s independence inevitable
now? Will the Labour Party tear itself apart over its
leader Jeremy Corbyn, resulting in some of its MPs
leaving to form a centre-left party, comparable to the
Social Democratic Party of Roy Jenkins, David Owen,
William Rodgers and Shirley Williams?
Whilst these are extremely exciting and intriguing
times for journalists, they are, at the same time,
extremely precarious times for the UK. That is a
reality which should not be lost on anyone.
One such journalist who understands the
magnitude of the political and economic situation that
Britain finds itself in is Cathy Newman.
Cathy, who joined Channel 4 News in 2006 as
a political correspondent, eventually becoming
its first ever female co-presenter in 2011, has
remorselessly exposed sexism and sexual harassment
at Westminster, culminating in her exposure of
harassment allegations against Liberal Democrat Lord
Chris Rennard. And Cathy has also become known in
households up and down Britain as the newsreader
who actually breaks her own investigative stories – an
ideal climax for any journalist.
Dogged and measured, professional and likeable,
Cathy has quickly become one of the most seasoned
journalists covering affairs at Westminster - and all at
the age of just 42.
In this exclusive interview, Cathy discusses whether
the public understood what it was voting on in the EU
referendum, the internal state of the Conservative and
Labour parties, Scotland’s chances of independence,
the future of the Liberal Democrats and if Brexit
actually will be implemented by Theresa May.
06 07

politics first | Exclusive Interview
Q. How would you describe UK politics at this period in
time?
A. This is the most turbulent time in UK politics in living memory.
The Westminster village did not see Brexit coming, and now
politicians and journalists, alike, are struggling to get their
heads round the consequences. But the origins of the current
instability can arguably be traced back a decade or more. MPs,
on all sides, have argued that Tony Blair’s fateful decision
to take the country to war in Iraq sparked a disillusionment
with mainstream politics and a mistrust of elites which have
overturned the existing order. That cynicism about Westminster
was further fuelled by the expenses scandal. The result is that
politics has become deeply unpredictable. For journalists
interested in politics, these are fascinating times. In 2010, we
witnessed the first coalition since 1945; last year, we saw the
election of a Labour leader written off by the majority of his
own party; and now the biggest story of all: Brexit. Anyone
with a crystal ball would be well advised to shatter it now,
because if the last few weeks are anything to go by, the future
is impossible to predict. A week used to be a long time in
politics; now 24 hours seems like an eternity as political
careers are made and broken, and erstwhile leadership
contenders languish on the backbenches. From hero to zero,
from zero to hero.
Q. Regarding the European Union referendum, how would
you rate the overall quality of the debate and did the
public understand what they were voting on?
A. Whenever I left the office to speak to people on the referendum
campaign trail, I was struck by how many people, particularly
women, said they needed more information. That I found
surprising as I felt the Leave and Remain campaigns were
bombarding us all with “facts” and figures. The problem was
that voters did not trust what they were hearing from either
camp. And although broadcasters like Channel 4 News did
our own FactCheck series, which has been viewed by over
10 million people, we also had a legal duty to report both
sides of the story. Remain campaigners felt therefore that their
opponents’ claims were often given more credence than they
deserved. I also felt the campaign on both sides was dominated
by white men, which left many women feeling alienated. And
tragically, especially online, the debate too often degenerated
into vitriol and abuse. If we are not careful, that, perhaps, is
the most dangerous legacy of the referendum - a licence to
shout at each other.
Q. Turning to the Conservative Party, what do you believe
the state of the party is, the challenges ahead are and
how do you rate Theresa May?
A. The Conservative party is, like Labour, deeply divided, with
the Remain-supporting prime minister now committed to
implementing a Brexit that she never wanted. It is suggested
that she has put the Brexiteers – Boris Johnson, David Davis
and Liam Fox – in charge of the perilous task of negotiating
the UK’s exit from the European Union. But she is the Prime
Minister, and the buck, ultimately, stops with her. If Brexit goes
badly for the UK or, by contrast, if she tries to push through
Brexit against the will of half of the electorate, she will get the
blame. That said, she is an incredibly skilled operator. Not for
nothing did she (almost) make history as one of the longestserving
Home Secretaries, running a department famed for
ending political careers. She not only hung on, but thrived
there, and while her main rivals to the Tory crown – Boris
Johnson and George Osborne - fell by the wayside, she was
the last woman standing. Her reputation for competence made
her the obvious choice to steady nerves in her party and her
country. But her statement on the steps of Number Ten, as
she took power, went far further than that, parking her tanks
on Labour’s lawn, with a pledge to govern for the many, not
the few. Whether that can be done, when her government is
strapped for cash and bogged down with Brexit, remains to
be seen.
Q. Regarding the Labour Party, can it be held together and
what is your opinion of Jeremy Corbyn?
A. If the Tories are divided, so is Labour, with bells on. The majority
of the Parliamentary Labour Party now have no confidence in
their leader, but if they are out of step with him, they are also
out of tune with many of the grassroots activists who have
the final say on any leader. Where the Tories acted decisively
to install a credible one nation leader, Labour struggled to
agree on a “unity candidate” to take on Jeremy Corbyn. As
the parliamentary party scraps, the Scottish nationalists look
far more like an official opposition than Labour. A threadbare
shadow cabinet is in no position to hold the government to
account. And yet as Mr Corbyn tours the country, speaking
to his adoring supporters, all the signs are that he will win
the leadership challenge and be installed again as leader, to
the dismay of most of his MPs. Faced with that prospect, it is
hard to avoid the conclusion that a formal split between MPs
and the grassroots, or, more drastically, the creation of a new
centre left party, are the only choices left. MPs from various
political parties are already having those discussions. So is
Mr Corbyn a decent man who has ended up, by an accident
of history, in the wrong job? Or, as many of his opponents
suggest, a devious man who has engineered the hostile
takeover of Labour by the “loony left”? Either way, Labour is in
no shape to win an election.
Q. How has Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish National
Party performed in 2016 and do you think it is inevitable
that Scotland will become an independent country,
especially in light of the Brexit victory?
A. Nicola Sturgeon remains one of the most formidable politicians
around today. Always impeccably briefed, fleet of foot and
uncompromising in her politics, she is probably the toughest
of interviewees! And as Theresa May, no doubt, found when
she hot-footed it to Bute House immediately after becoming
prime minister, Ms Sturgeon takes no prisoners. That Mrs
May beat a path straight to the Scottish First Minister’s door
spoke volumes about the new Prime Minister’s anxieties post-
Brexit. If the UK has sacrificed one union, the last thing Mrs
May wants is to lose the other, much closer to home. But it
is hard to see how Scotland can remain in the UK when the
country voted so convincingly to remain in the EU. Now that
Brexit is underway, Ms Sturgeon has made it clear that another
independence referendum is on the cards, to avoid the Scots
being dragged out of the EU against their will. But as so few
saw Brexit coming, it would surely be foolish to sketch out
what the political terrain looks like in future. There is many a
slip twixt cup and lip, and who knows what Brexit will look like?
Until we know that, it is impossible to predict whether Mrs May
will succeed in keeping the UK together, where David Cameron
failed to stop Britain falling out of the EU.
Q. Over one year on as leader of the Liberal Democrats, what successes, so far, can
Tim Farron record in his tenure?
A. The 2015 election broke the Liberal Democrats. In government, the party could
legitimately lay claim to having tempered austerity, laundering the Conservatives’ “nasty
party” image. Had David Cameron had to form a coalition once again, he would, no
doubt, have leapt at the chance of dropping the EU referendum to appease his pro-
European governing partner, at the expense of his own right wing. As it was though, the
Liberal Democrats were shattered, returning to Westminster with just eight (all male,
all white) MPs. It must have been tempting to give up and go home. So the party’s new
leader Tim Farron should get plaudits for simply keeping the show on the road. Not just
that, his swift denunciation of the Brexit result has seen the Liberal Democrats actually
gain members. And the truth is, where many might have written the Liberal Democrats
off, Labour’s woes might just give them a new lease of life – a home for left of centre
voters who judge Jeremy Corbyn as too hard-left to take seriously. If Labour gets its
act together, though, it is the Liberal Democrats who may face an existential crisis.
Either way, it is possible that some Liberal Democrat MPs might join forces with Labour
backbenchers. The former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Paddy Ashdown is already
talking about a new centre-left alliance. The question is if that becomes a more formal
party, who on earth would lead it?
Q. Finally, do you think Brexit will be implemented?
A. After the last few extraordinary months, only a fool would claim to know what the future
holds. No one knows exactly what Brexit will look like – not least the three men in the
cabinet tasked with making it happen. There are those who still hanker after a second
referendum, on the basis that a significant number of people who voted to leave now
have buyer’s remorse. But that seems highly unlikely. The people, no matter how divided,
have spoken. However, if the rules on freedom of movement are radically changed across
the EU, there might be an argument for another poll. Or, if Theresa May judges it to her
political advantage, she might possibly decide to get a mandate for any Brexit deal when
it finally comes. Otherwise, the safest bet looks to be an agreement based on some kind
of compromise over freedom of movement coupled with some kind of access to the
single market. But who knows? And whatever gets agreed upon, there will be those who
cry foul – that it is not true Brexit – and those on the other side who say it is Armageddon
for Britain. The truth will, no doubt, be somewhere in between.
CATHY
NEWMAN
Born on 14 July, 1974,
in Guildford, Surrey;
Read English at Lady
Margaret Hall, Oxford
University, graduating
with a first-class
honours degree;
Following university,
worked on The
Independent and the
Financial Times;
Joined Channel
4 News in 2006
as a political
correspondent,
eventually becoming
co-presenter of the
programme in 2011.
08 09

politics first | Columns
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Could the Island
of Ireland soon
come under British
jurisdiction again?
At this moment in
time, anything is
possible in UK politics
Dr John Coulter
Emerald Check
JON CRAIG
Eye in the Sky
United Ireland or united island? That’s the
key question in the aftermath of the Brexit
vote. The UK leaving the European Union
will not be the only union which will be
decided in the coming years.
With Scottish nationalists waving their
SNP claymores as they demand a second
independence referendum, and Irish
republicans equally demanding a border
poll, the initial perception is that Brexit will
lead to the all-Ireland, democratic socialist
republic that the Irish rebels of Easter 1916
had fought for.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ireland as an island is about to witness
a seismic political shift not seen since
partition in the 1920s. Brexit will leave
the Irish Republic literally as a politically,
economically and geographically isolated
EU member.
The Southern Irish nation only survived
financially after the disastrous collapse of
the once-thriving Celtic Tiger economy
with a massive bail-out, substantially
funded by the UK.
The 1998 Good Friday Agreement has
sucked Provisional Sinn Fein – once the
unrepentant apologist for the IRA – into the
democratic peace process. The party runs
the power-sharing Stormont Executive in
Belfast with the Democratic Unionists, and
is a significant minority movement in the
Dublin Parliament, the Dail.
The start/stop terror campaign by
dissident republicans has failed to
persuade London and Dublin that a united
Ireland is a workable solution. But a united
island is the way forward.
For the island as a whole to survive
post-EU, it will have to be part of a major
global power bloc. That solution lies
with the Commonwealth Parliamentary
Association, a body founded in 1911 as
the Empire Parliamentary Association, with
Ireland as a founder member when the
island was a single political entity under
British rule.
The CPA now represents more than
50 regional and national parliaments
across the globe with many, but not all,
former colonies of the British Empire. The
Northern Ireland Assembly boasts CPA
membership.
The Republic must take the historic step
of negotiating a new Union with the UK in
which the 26 Counties of Southern Ireland
agree to re-join the British Commonwealth.
Failure to adopt that Brexit reality will
eventually leave the Republic as nothing
more than a third-rate African state.
It’ll never happen, the prophets of doom
maintain. They said the late Ian Paisley
senior would never share power with Sinn
Fein. He did and became First Minister
with former IRA man Martin McGuinness
as his Deputy. They said Sinn Fein would
never recognise Stormont. It did, as the
party now has ministers in the Executive
administering Northern Ireland.
Sinn Fein is becoming dominated by
the so-called ‘draft dodgers’ – members,
and especially elected representatives,
who have never served a political
apprenticeship in the IRA.
Within a decade, as elected
representatives who are former IRA
members retire or die, Sinn Fein will be
transformed into a 21 st century version of
the now defunct constitutional republican
organisation, the Irish Independence Party,
which enjoyed its political height in the late
1970s. Ironically, the IIP was once led by a
former Protestant British Army officer, John
Turnly, until his murder by loyalist terrorists
in 1980.
And it must not be forgotten that when
Sinn Fein was founded in 1905 by Arthur
Griffith, his original vision for Ireland was
not a Cuban-style, hard-Left state, but an
Ireland which enjoyed Canadian-style
dominion status with the British Throne still
having a major position in his new Ireland.
So a united island under the
Commonwealth banner would be the
half-way house which could placate both
Unionists and nationalists in Ireland post-
Brexit. Nationalists can claim they have the
island united as a single political identity;
equally, Unionists can claim that the
Republic is back in the Commonwealth.
Indeed, the current Irish Republic is a
far cry from the Unionists’ battle cry against
Home Rule in the pre-Great War era, when,
for them, “Home Rule means Rome Rule”
– a reference to the influence of the Roman
Catholic Church throughout the southern
part of the island.
The ethos of former Irish President
Eamon de Valera consulting with the
Irish Catholic Bishops before making key
political decisions is dead and buried.
The Republic is now an overwhelmingly
secularised state, emphasised by the
strong vote in favour of marriage equality.
A generation ago, what was the topic of
after-dinner speculation may well become
a political reality – the new UK’s Union
will see the British establishment swop
Scotland for Ireland. Don’t laugh, because
many a true word was spoken in jest.
I wonder what odds you could have got
a year ago on a treble of Theresa May
being Prime Minister within a year, Labour
holding a second leadership election
inside 12 months and the UK leaving the
European Union? Pretty good, I imagine.
This time last year, Jeremy Corbyn’s
victory was predictable, George Osborne
was frontrunner to succeed David Cameron
and the odds on a Leave vote in the EU
referendum were fairly generous.
The shock result in the referendum
wasn’t just the defining moment of 2016,
but also of this Parliament, the next decade
and possibly beyond.
Brexit, with all its repercussions for
each of the political parties, will dominate
this autumn’s party conferences. There will
be inquests, bitter recriminations and - for
some - jubilant celebrations.
The vast majority of the activists
attending the Conservative Party
Conference in Birmingham - mainly elderly
and fiercely Euro-sceptic - will have been
delighted by the referendum result.
The Cabinet’s “three Brexiteers”, Boris
Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox, will
be greeted with adulation by the adoring
Tory representatives.
Boris Johnson, always the darling of
the Tory conference these days, will get
his customary rock star welcome. But I
suspect he will tone down the clowning of
his years as London mayor now that he is
Foreign Secretary.
Sending Boris to the Foreign Office may
have looked like a reckless gamble by the
usually ultra-cautious Theresa May, but in
many ways it was a masterstroke. He has
the chance to start behaving like a grown
up politician and mature into the Tories’
heir apparent. Or, if he fails to curb the
clowning, he will fall flat on his face and
be finished as a serious contender for the
top job.
The top three domestic dilemmas for
Theresa May and her new government
are the “three Hs” - Hinkley, HS2 and
Heathrow. Hinkley, we now know, was one
nuclear button the new Prime Minister
wasn’t prepared to press without a rethink.
What about the other two?
David who? George who? That’s
politics. Theresa May will still be enjoying
her honeymoon period at this year’s
conference. It will also be her chance to
define “Mayism” and make a clean break
from the “posh boy” era of Cameron and
Osborne and the cronyism which reached
an undignified climax with the row over
the former PM’s resignation honours this
summer.
A honeymoon period? Sound familiar?
Nine years ago, at Labour’s conference
in Bournemouth, Gordon Brown had just
succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister
and was enjoying a similar honeymoon and
glowing opinion poll ratings.
That was the conference when Brown
effectively marched his Labour troops up to
the top of the hill with the expectation that
he would call a snap election, only to call
it off a couple of weeks later. That was the
end of his honeymoon period. It’s difficult
to see Theresa May making a similar
mistake, though there’s bound to be talk in
Birmingham about an early election.
There must be a strong possibility that
many Labour MPs will stay away from
their conference in Liverpool. We saw the
Labour benches in the Commons almost
completely empty during an Opposition
Day debate on the economy after John
McDonnell gloated at a Momentum rally
about the plotters against Jeremy Corbyn
being “****ing useless”. He was right,
though.
Who’s running the Labour Party
these days? It looks more and more like
Len McCluskey, especially now that reselection
- or de-selection, more like
- looms for many Labour MPs. As if they
weren’t gloomy enough!
The Liberal Democrats, whose
conference is in Bournemouth this year, say
they’re going to campaign to re-join the EU.
Not sure that’s a vote-winner, especially
if it means a second referendum, which
many pro-Europeans want. (Personally, I
think we should campaign for a replay of
the England-Iceland game at Euro 2016.)
The Scottish Nationalists, who are
back in Glasgow for their conference,
want a second referendum, too, but on
independence, not the EU. But I wouldn’t
bet on that happening any time soon. I
detect a bit of referendum and election
fatigue among voters in Scotland.
I also have a hunch that the SNP may
have peaked when they won their 56
seats at Westminster in 2015. Remember,
also, they won fewer seats in the Scottish
Parliament this year than in 2011. And,
as Theresa May pointed out to Angus
Robertson at her first Prime Minister’s
Questions, the SNP campaigned to leave
the EU in the 2014 referendum on Scottish
independence.
So I’m not betting on a referendum
on anything between now and the 2017
conference season. Another Labour
leadership election? You never know.
And will the Tories still be debating how
to make Brexit work in a year’s time? I’d
certainly bet on that.
10 11

politics first | Special Section: Chinese Ambassador
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
China-UK relations:
the future is purchased by the present
His Excellency Ambassador Liu Xiaoming,
Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Court of St James’s
Samuel Johnson once said: “The future is
purchased by the present.” Today’s China-
UK relations are the result of decades long
and concerted efforts of both countries,
while the future of our bilateral relations
depends on how we choose today – we
need to work hard together today to
purchase a better future.
The year 2017 will mark the 45th
anniversary of the establishment of
ambassadorial-level diplomatic relations
between China and the UK. Thanks to our
unremitting efforts over the past 45 years,
China-UK relations have witnessed a
leapfrog development.
Firstly, China-UK political ties have
moved to a higher level. With the handover
of Hong Kong, we resolved an important
historical issue. Hong Kong became a
special administrative region of China.
We established a comprehensive strategic
China-UK partnership and a number
of high-level dialogue mechanisms,
including the annual Prime Ministers’
Meeting, the Economic and Financial
Dialogue, the Strategic Dialogue and the
High Level People-to-people Dialogue.
Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping
paid a state visit to the UK, which greatly
promoted bilateral cooperation and
exchanges across the board and unveiled
the “Golden Era” of China-UK relations.
Our two countries also share the
commitment to reforms of the international
economic and financial system. We
have had effective cooperation in global
issues, such as maintaining world peace,
supporting free trade, addressing climate
change, advancing development and
eliminating poverty.
Secondly, China-UK business ties have
grown closer at a faster speed. China is the
UK’s second largest non-European trading
partner. Our bilateral trade grew from $300
million in 1972 to $78.5 billion last year.
Britain is the largest investment destination
for Chinese businesses in Europe. As of
the end of 2015, China’s investment in the
UK, in non-financial sectors, totalled $13.2
billion. Meanwhile, steady progress has
been made in our financial cooperation.
Today, London is the world’s largest RMB
offshore market outside of China.
Thirdly, the cultural ties and people-topeople
exchanges between China and the UK
are growing with a strong momentum. Every
year, more than one million Chinese and
British people travel back and forth between
our two countries. The UK is the number one
destination for Chinese students in Europe.
In comparison to 40 years ago, when only
16 Chinese and 11 British students studied
in each other’s country, today there are more
than 150,000 Chinese students in Britain
and 6,000 British students in China. Our two
countries have also established 55 sistercity
relationships.
Today, the UK is in the post-Brexit period
which is still full of uncertainties. For China-
UK relations, now is a time of new challenges
and opportunities. At this critical historical
moment of changes, our strong confidence
in China-UK relations remains unchanged.
The vital interests that bond the two countries
together, and the fundamentals of our bilateral
relations, have remained unchanged.
First of all, the strategic and global nature
of China-UK relations remains unchanged.
Both China and Britain are the world’s major
economies and permanent members of the
UN Security Council. We have had good
cooperation at global forums, such as the
Security Council and G20, and on many
international issues, from climate change to
free trade. The global significance of a sound,
stable and win-win partnership between China
and the UK goes beyond the bilateral scope.
Such a partnership serves not only the people
of our two countries but also world peace,
stability and prosperity.
Second, our common desire for
continued cooperation and win-win results
remains unchanged. The UK has strong
high-tech and financial sectors and has
an edge in brand promotion and creative
industry. China has a big labour force
and market, and the size of its economy
comes with a strong financing capability.
As the second and fifth largest economies,
respectively, China and the UK have much
to offer to each other and huge potential for
further cooperation. There is every reason
for our two countries to engage in closer
cooperation and become win-win partners.
Third, our shared desire for deeper mutual
understanding and trust remains unchanged.
From my direct experience, I see how the
British public has great enthusiasm to learn
more about China. During President Xi
Jinping’s state visit to the UK last year, the
British public showed great interest in China.
Events during the Chinese culture season
of the China-UK Year of Culture Exchange
attracted tens of thousands of British people.
The Confucius institutes and classrooms in
Britain are direct outcomes of great enthusiasm
in Chinese language learning. This year marks
the 400th anniversary of the passing of Tang
Xianzu and William Shakespeare, two literary
giants of China and Britain. There have been
a series of co-hosted commemorations that
helped enhance mutual understanding and
friendship between the Chinese and British
people.
Fourth, China’s commitment to stronger
China-UK relations remains unchanged.
Despite uncertainties after the Brexit
referendum, the Chinese government and
business sector have cast the “vote of
confidence”.
On 8th June, two weeks before the
referendum, China’s Ministry of Finance
issued a three billion three-year RMB bond
in London. That was the first RMB sovereign
bond issued outside of China. After Britain
voted to leave the EU, Chinese leaders, on
many occasions, reiterated the position that
China wants to see a stable and prosperous
Britain and will work with the British side for
closer bilateral ties and greater benefits for our
two peoples.
On 25th June, just two days after the
referendum, a Chinese company made a new
move. Tianjin Airlines, a subsidiary of China’s
Hainan Airlines Group, opened a direct flight
route connecting Tianjin, Chongqing and
London. On 28th June, Huawei UK went ahead
with its £1.3 billion investment, as planned.
We hope that the changes within
British politics will not compromise the UK
government’s consensus and commitment
to working with China for a sound China-
UK relationship. We hope that, regardless
of any foreign policy adjustments in the UK,
advancing ties with China will always be a
priority in Britain’s external relations.
This year’s G20 Summit will be held in
China’s Hangzhou, this September. I hope
that China and the UK will seize that important
opportunity to work together with other member
states for the strong, sustainable and balanced
growth of the world economy, to advance an
innovation and reform-led world economy,
to improve global economic governance
and to establish a fair, just, inclusive and
orderly international financial system. Prime
Minister Theresa May will go to China to
attend the summit. President Xi Jinping will
hold a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister
May during the Summit. That will be the
first meeting between the leaders of our two
countries since the new British government
was formed. It is of great importance for the
development of our bilateral relations. I am
convinced that the meeting will set new goals,
map out a new blueprint and introduce new
dynamism to China-UK relations.
Looking back at the past, over four
decades of China-UK relations, we have
learnt this: for China-UK ties to grow and
sustain, it is important that we respect each
other, treat each other as equals and take
into account each other’s core interests
and major concerns. Looking to the future,
we need to stick to that important principle,
cherish what has been achieved through
hard efforts, and seize today’s opportunity
and work for a future of lasting, stable and
sound China-UK relations.
12
13

ADVERTORIAL
Prison reform in an age of uncertainty
Last year more people were murdered in prison than in any other year on record. Levels of
suicide behind bars are at a ten-year high. Self-harm incidents have risen by 27 per cent in
the space of a year and assaults on prison staff have increased by 40 per cent.
These are just some of the grim statistics that spell out the need for radical change and yet the
political turmoil of Brexit has created uncertainty for those engaged in prison reform. The Howard
League for Penal Reform is holding party conference fringes which will discuss the way forward.
Liberal Democrats
Tuesday 20 September 2016, 8-9am
Brighton Hilton Metropole
(Sandringham Room)
Speakers: Ian Dunt, Politics.co.uk
(chair); Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP; Lord
Marks of Henley-on-Thames (tbc);
Frances Crook, The Howard League
for Penal Reform
Labour
Tuesday 27 September 2016, 6-7pm
Liverpool Hilton (Meeting Room 3)
Speakers: Polly Toynbee, The
Guardian (chair); Jo Stevens MP;
Professor Barry Goldson, University
of Liverpool; Frances Crook, The
Howard League for Penal Reform
Conservatives
(in partnership with Bright Blue)
Tuesday 4 October 2016, 5.45-7pm
Birmingham Hilton Garden Inn
(Lismore Room)
Speakers: Ryan Shorthouse, Bright
Blue (chair); Ian Birrell, The Mail on
Sunday; Sam Gyimah MP, Minister
for Prisons; Kit Malthouse MP;
Frances Crook, The Howard League
for Penal Reform
You can join the Howard League by visiting www.howardleague.org
info@howardleague.org Charity No. 251926
16

ADVERTORIAL
ADVERTORIAL
BREXIT – AN OPPORTUNITY OR A DISASTER?
The UK’s Paper Industry is European. The vast majority
of UK mills report directly to head offices dotted around
Scandinavia and mainland Europe. The material itself is
traded freely across the continent’s borders, both in its
virgin state and as a waste material.
The sector is, therefore, very concerned about the future
relationship between the UK and the EU. We accept that
“Brexit means Brexit” but how do we define Brexit? It
could mean anything from an acrimonious and complete
divorce to business as usual, with some modifications
to the rules surrounding the free movement of people.
Until this issue is resolved, we can expect industry to
be wary about large scale investment in the UK. For any
capital intensive sector this could have serious long term
consequences.
Our Energy Intensive Industries (EIIs) are vulnerable,
particularly in light of the UK’s tight energy supply
position and the direct and indirect costs that they bear in
achieving the UK’s very ambitious climate change targets.
As a priority we need to ensure that the UK retains tarifffree
non-discriminatory access to the European Energy
Market and that we are involved in the future development
of that market. It is essential that supplies of both gas and
electricity continue to flow through the interconnectors
with continental Europe.
We need a fundamental review of climate change policy. It
is crucial that in the years to come our EIIs are not put at a
competitive disadvantage. The new administration needs
to continue the policy of its predecessor by exempting or
compensating EIIs for costs not born by our European
competitors. The Carbon Floor Price must be scrapped.
Fresh incentives should be introduced to encourage EIIs
to invest in and operate on-site auto-generation of heat
and power.
There is also a very strong case for targeting carbon
consumption as well as emissions as this will give
us a much clearer indication of the impact that we
are having on the global environment. We must be
wary about entering fresh trade agreements with
countries that are still free to exploit low global
prices for oil and coal which could put them at a
very considerable competitive advantage over us
here in the UK.
Because the Paper Industry here operates within
a European framework, it must continue to be free
to move senior executives and skilled operatives
around its sites – including to the UK – and to
employ foreign labour when it cannot recruit locally.
The Paper Industry – along with all other EIIs – has been
working with officials in developing a series of 2050 Roadmaps.
These are due to be published early in 2017 and need to be
used in developing a meaningful industrial strategy aimed at
maintaining and growing the presence of EIIs in the UK. They
are, after all, the backbone of manufacturing.
If we get our strategy right there is a huge opportunity for
us to expand papermaking in the UK. We are currently the
world’s largest net importer of paper and we now have a
chance to reverse recent declines and to exploit potential
export markets. If we fail to create the market conditions for
growth then the European owners of our industry are likely to
focus future investment elsewhere – which would be a social,
economic and environmental disaster.
The Confederation of Paper Industries (CPI) is the leading
trade association representing the UK’s Paper-based
Industries. CPI represents an industry with an aggregate
annual turnover of £6.5 billion, 25,000 direct and more
than 100,000 indirect employees.
For further information call 01793 889600
email: cpi@paper.org.uk
twitter: @Confedofpaper
or visit www.paper.org.uk
Advertising really does matter. It matters to peoples jobs, to our
national wealth, to our international success and may be can
help with our nation’s health.
UK exports of advertising services are worth a staggering
£4.1 billion. This helps boost the international success of UK
brands and the UK brand itself; advertising demonstrates how
globalisation can be made to work for our nations. The UK
advertising and media markets and our advertising exports are
a vibrant reflection of London’s and the UK’s kaleidoscope of
talent which has its roots worldwide.
Ad spend in the UK funds the creative industries and much
of the media. Whether it is our newspapers and magazines
to the TV programmes we enjoy on ITV, Channel 4, Channel
5 and Sky, or viewing accessed via the Internet, perhaps
directly from YouTube and others. Much of our digital and
traditional media are ad funded with the rise of ad blocking
this is now become a challenging time for publishers and
content creators alike. There may come a point where a
decision will have to be made on whether content is paid
for or not. Sponsorship directly supports many sporting and
cultural events. Advertising also helps subsidise much of the
country’s transport; for example TfL who have an estimated
ad revenue of £250 million a year which is re-invested in the
network and used to subsidise journeys.
Advertising plays a wider role and makes a serious contribution
to helping overcome some of society’s problems. Advertising
is rarely the problem itself or even a major cause of the issue,
advertising is simply not that powerful. Perhaps advertising is a
reflection of the problem not the cause. The growth in obesity is
not caused by the ads; but advertisers and the media can help
ADVERTISING
IN OUR
NATIONS AND
REGIONS
Ian Twinn, Director of Public Affairs
reinforce responsible consumption and lifestyle messages
by working long term with governments, health experts
and campaigners. That needs commitment on all sides;
commitment to work in genuine partnership; commitment to
long term goals and consistent messages.
At the heart of the UK’s advertising success story lies strong
self-regulation aided by government. UK governments have
been very supportive of the advertising ecosystem including
working with the industry to give it the tools to compete
worldwide.
Advertising is strictly regulated and consumer protection is the
driving force behind the advertising codes. The UK consumer
law and the underlying EU directives reflect a common desire
from Parliament and the ad industry to encourage responsible
practices. Compliance with ad rules is very high; anyone
can complain to the independent regulator, the ASA, which
enforces the rules.
The advertising industry plays a proactive role in education
through Media Smart. Media Smart is a not-for-profit organisation
which works alongside independent educationalists to create
free educational materials for schools and youth clubs, for
teachers and parents. This helps young people think critically
about the advertising they come across in their daily lives.
Advertising after Brexit will be a key tool for our country to
turn towards a global role whilst maintaining strong trading
relationships with our former partners in the EU. As the fog of
uncertainty clears the UK’s creative and media skills can help
us define our new role whilst themselves being a strong export
of our services.
Find out more about our mission on behalf of responsible advertisers
See who our members are www.isba.org.uk Ask us the difficult questions iant@isba.org.uk

ADVERTORIAL

ADVERTORIAL
ADVERTORIAL
STRONG BREXIT DEAL IS A
MUST FOR UK INNOVATION!
Richard Brook OBE FREng
President AIRTO
(Association of Innovation,
Research and Technology
Organisations)
www.airto.co.uk
@airtoinnovation
With Brexit looming ever closer, getting a strong deal with the
European Union (EU) will be just as vital for the innovation
ecosystem that underpins the UK’s prosperity, productivity
and competitiveness, as it will be for our high profile university
research and science base.
Whilst the UK ranks second in the world in terms of scientific research, it is
also second in the Global Innovation Index. Without access to EU networks,
partners, skilled staff and financial underpinning, or to other comparable
international communities and financing, this positioning could easily be
lost with consequent damage to the UK economy. Britain’s large and thriving
Innovation, Research & Technology (IRT) sector contributes £32-36 billion
per annum to the economy. The IRT organisations that AIRTO represents
(including Catapult Centres, Independent Research and Technology
Organisations, Public Sector Research establishments and specialist private
companies) are a significant component of the UK’s innovation ecosystem,
focused on commercial translation of applied research.
IRT sector organisations already do twice as much business with the rest of
the world as with EU clients. However, diminution of links to EU collaboration
networks and funding for science and research will hamper capacity to
advance innovation. While ready to further expand links with global partners,
IRT organisations need continuing access to investment in research and
innovation, and procurement contracts to maintain their world-leading edge.
AIRTO’s immediate priorities for the UK’s £8bn IRT sector are to minimise any
negative impact on UK science and economic growth more widely, and to
harness any opportunities that Brexit presents. Nevertheless, negotiation of
a satisfactory deal with the EU is vital, mainly to ensure that opportunities for
participation in collaborative programmes with potential business and future
supply chain partners remain available to the UK.
Science, research and innovation are intrinsically coupled to economic
prosperity, so it is important to continue resourcing scientific and
technological advances. In the wake of the Brexit vote, sustained investment
in research and innovation, particularly in the underpinning skills,
infrastructure and science and engineering disciplines, is critical for the
nation’s continuing success as a world-leader in innovation.
Working alongside government, and Innovate UK in particular, in 2015
the AIRTO community had already committed to driving real-term growth
over the next decade, but this is only achievable by embedding more
productivity-enhancing innovations into the private and public sectors,
and now – crucially - by achieving a strong Brexit deal.
Key priorities for government to tackle are:
Preserving access to networks and current levels of collaborative
EU research and innovation, and funding during and following the
transitionary period of exit.
Making available additional UK-sourced research and innovation
funding to industry, the IRT Sector and universities in the transitionary
period, and post-Brexit if access to EU funding sources cannot be
secured. EU research and innovation funds will inevitably fall during the
immediate Brexit aftermath. Loss of momentum is a threat to our skills
base, technology ownership and competitiveness; competitors could
capitalise on any emerging UK weaknesses.
Ensuring the IRT Sector is involved in Brexit planning to achieve the best
possible solutions.
Key aspects that must not be lost sight of include:
Partnering: the importance of conserving our capacity to partner with EUbased
RTOs, universities, business partners and SMEs.
Investing in local regional infrastructure: compensating for the probable
loss of EU structural funding to rejuvenate parts of the UK ‘left behind’ by
changes to the UK’s industrial infrastructure.
People: the supply of innovation skills remains a major challenge, so
free movement of people is vital and threats to this would be detrimental
to the IRT sector; post-Brexit the government must take steps to improve
the supply of skills from within the UK in both research and technology
specialisations and innovation management.
Industrial commitment: Uncertainty surrounding future economic prospects
undermines confidence and retaining inward investment by multi nationals
will be vital in stimulating innovation and competitiveness, providing an
important stimulus and laying the foundations for the necessary customer
base needed to maintain the UK’s trade in key high value sectors such as
pharmaceuticals and aerospace.
Innovation strategy: having elected to push forward with establishment of
UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), this should be implemented without
delay whilst ensuring that innovation retains a high profile and business-led
mission.
Regulation and standards: the ability to shape and influence EU regulations
is vital. In particular, the impact of Brexit for the UK’s Notified Bodies (which
require EU resident status to operate with EU clients) needs to be addressed.
Brexit negotiations must ensure that our national innovation
infrastructure is not damaged and is indeed further developed if we
are to see productivity increase and our economy prosper in the UK’s
post-Brexit trading in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
Uncertain times?
Harold Wilson is attributed with the quote that: “A week is a long time in
politics.” Never a truer word was said!
At the time of writing, just a few weeks since the referendum on European
Union membership, and even less since a new Prime Minister and
Cabinet have taken up office, I cannot recall such a time of change, at
such a pace in UK politics. The same can be said for the optical sector.
The Foresight Report* forecasts that the end is almost nigh and, having sat
on a panel and debated “Will we still need optometrists in 2020?”, it would
seem, perhaps, that there is light at the end of the tunnel, but things will
need to change and soon.
I recently attended two pre-consultation events run by the Department of
Health before formally consulting on proposals for reform with regard to
the Regulation of Healthcare professionals which include my profession
– opticians and optometrists, students, contact lens opticians and optical
businesses. The prime reason for those pre-consultation events were for
the DH to ‘test with interested parties’ that:
The DH has identified the relevant issues regarding professional
regulation; and
The DH is posing the right questions to address this.
Debate around the tables, with interested professionals from different
disciplines, was deep and impassioned. Each profession was fighting
their case, and saying why they deserved to be seen as professionals and
regulated in an expedient way. We all understand that the DH has a huge
role to play and has to have regulators which are ‘fit for purpose’ and fair
in their dealings with registrants and to maintain public protection at all
times. Not an easy task!
The mix of professionals represented were each the same but different to
their neighbour. Some worked in the NHS within a hospital setting, others
in the community; only my colleagues from pharmacy were based on the
High Street like me. However, we are all delivering NHS services, despite
being a disparate group. All bound by codes of conduct, standards of
practice and ethics, yet our working environment is very different.
To come back to the Foresight Report*, which is a report detailing
potential changes and challenges to the optical sector with the advent of
increasing use of technology in optical practice. Automation of process
which is currently carried out by humans and the real possibility of selftesting
and remote diagnosis will make for even more challenges for
regulators. It is not inconceivable for a patient to self-scan the back of their
eyes via a booth in a shopping mall, pay by credit card, enter an email
address and have the images critiqued by an ophthalmologist based in
the United States or Australia. Now, how does a regulator regulate that?
It would seem to me that regulators do need to be reviewed - there must
be lots of duplication across the nine regulators which we currently have
- but I would not be hasty, and I would not advocate merging them all
into one ‘super regulator’. Economies of scale may abound by sharing
common costs – such as ‘back office’ administration, secretarial and
even premises - but, when dealing with a diverse mix of professionals, it
would be unwise to dilute specialist knowledge when Fitness to Practice
cases come to the fore. Then we need strict governance and specialist
knowledge from expert witnesses to ensure right and proper investigation
for all professions.
Uncertain times alright!
Fiona Anderson BSc (Hons)
FBDO R SMC(Tech)
President, Association of British Dispensing Opticians
* The Foresight Report was published in March 2016 and
was commissioned by the Optical Confederation and the
College of Optometrists.
Members of the Optical Confederation are:
Association of British Dispensing Opticians (ABDO)
Association of Contact Lens Manufacturers (ACLM)
Association of Optometrists (AOP)
Federation of Manufacturing Opticians (FMO)
Federation of (Ophthalmic & Dispensing) Opticians (FODO)

politics first | Leaders
ADVERTORIAL
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Building a Britain
that works better
for everyone
Making a success of Brexit:
grasping the opportunities
of a digital world
Sir Patrick
McLoughlin MP,
Chairman of the
Conservative Party
At this historic moment for our country, Conservative
principles and values are needed more than ever to
take Britain forward and build a country that works for
everyone, not just the privileged few.
Tim Cummins, Chief
Executive Officer of the
International Association for
Contract and Commercial
Management, discusses with
Marcus Papadopoulos how
an outward-looking Britain
can prosper in a digital and
post-EU world
Q Can you describe the work of the International Association for Contract and Commercial
Management.
The digital world is transforming social and business relationships. In order to cope with such volatile
conditions, commercial competence and skills have never been more important. As the only non-profit
association in our field, we assist organisations and governments to improve their commercial capabilities,
especially their supply and customer relationships. IACCM’s mission is based on the fact that domestic
and international trade is fundamental to economic wellbeing and human welfare - greater success equals
greater harmony, yielding both economic and social results. Trade, today, is increasingly complex – global
interdependence, continuous innovation, endless uncertainty, of which Brexit is simply one example. Factors
such as those keep us very busy!
Q What does your role within IACCM involve?
26
The British people chose a new direction for our
country at the European Union referendum, and with
Theresa May as Prime Minister and the Conservatives
in Government, we are delivering the strong leadership
our country needs, not just to carry out the will of the
people, but to get the best outcome for Britain.
“
It must be a priority
to regain more
control of the
numbers of people
who come here
from Europe – but
also to allow British
companies to trade
with the single
market in goods
and services
“
I founded IACCM in 1999 and I am its Chief Executive Officer. I lead our global team and oversee our
research agenda. Since we are truly global (with members in over 160 countries), I also spend a lot of my
time travelling and promoting our message internationally.
Q Does IACCM act in an advisory capacity to foreign governments and, if so, can you describe
the work here?
Yes, we do. We offer unique research and insights that come from a worldwide, public and private sector
perspective. Governments have become more and more interested in how to build and maintain better
relationships with the private sector, ensuring greater integrity, greater transparency, better performance and
continuous innovation in public service design and delivery. So the need for commercial creativity and
competence is something that is noticeable in most countries hence why IACCM’s expertise in this area
has been sought by numerous governments; for instance, the US, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Japan,
to name a few.
Q Are there any lessons which Britain can learn from other countries, in terms of what to do
and what not to do?
As we find with the private sector, there is no single country that embodies ‘best practice’. There is simply
good practice scattered in many different countries. So it is critical to keep an open mind and be ready to
learn from anywhere. Many governments are looking at the UK with great interest because of its commercial
reform programme. There is no question we are in the lead on many initiatives, but that does not mean we
cannot learn from others – both their successes and failures. So, for example, Finland is doing great work on
digitisation; the US has excellent data and experience on small and medium business, on new technologies
like Blockchain; and Australia is probably the leader in performance-based contracting. Britain’s history is of
an outward-looking nation and we must remember the benefit that stems from this. To compete globally, the
UK must be ready to assimilate good ideas, no matter where they come from.
Q What affect will Brexit have on the British economy?
Inevitably, it will depend on how Brexit is implemented. At a personal level, I believe Brexit will create more
opportunities. I am excited by the possibility of expanding our horizons and eliminating the bureaucracy, the
complex decision-making that typifies the European Union. As we look at economic success in a digital
world, I am not at all sure that the future will be based on old assumptions of massive trading blocs like the
EU. We have a great opportunity for Britain to define its future with a global perspective and to operate with
the agility and flexibility that today’s competitive markets demand. While the reasons we are leaving the EU
may not be the right ones, I firmly believe that the decision, itself, will prove liberating and will generate
a new era of entrepreneurial thinking – both within and outside government. I am certainly excited and
motivated by the chance to put IACCM’s knowledge and ideas at the service of the UK government and
British industry to help make sure that Brexit is a great success.

politics first | Leaders
Building a Britain that works
better for everyone
ADVERTORIAL
HEALTH AND WORK IN A CHANGING WORLD
Sir Patrick McLoughlin MP, Chairman of the Conservative Party
“
I have a deep appreciation for how giving everyone the chance
“
to succeed – no matter their background, gender, skin colour,
sexuality, or post code – has the potential to help transform lives
As we begin our negotiations to leave the EU
and forge a new role for ourselves in the world, our
nation will inevitably face difficult and complex
decisions. But the Government is committed to
making the most of the opportunities that our
departure from the EU presents.
We will work hard to get the best deal for
Britain. As we conduct our negotiations, it
must be a priority to regain more control of the
numbers of people who come here from Europe
– but also to allow British companies to trade
with the single market in goods and services.
But as unionists, the Conservative Party
understands that we need to bring stability to our
country, too. We cannot be exclusively defined
by our withdrawal from the EU. Instead, we must
move forward and show the people of Scotland,
Wales, Northern Ireland and England, alike, that
our governments are working together, to make
ours a country that works for everyone – not just
the privileged few.
Over the last six years, the Conservatives
have stabilised the economy, reduced the
budget deficit, helped more people into work
than ever before, and taken people on the lowest
wages out of income tax altogether.
We have succeeded not only in turning
the economy around, but also in focusing
our efforts on a modern, compassionate
Conservative agenda to back working families
and help more people from dependency
to self-sufficiency. We have made good
progress, but there is more still to do. That
is why we are committed to going further
to help ordinary families who are just about
managing.
Fatalities at work, such a common – and
awful – fact of working life in the past,
have now, through a combination of
state intervention and change of work,
been massively reduced. When it comes
to work-related risks, it is commonplace
to say that the UK’s health and safety
framework is robust, credible and largely
effective. Now, with profound changes to
how we work, there is a question whether
our framework or the topics we focus on
are the right ones for the future, particular
on how work impacts on people’s health,
or health on work.
Costs associated with ill-health – whether
from reduced economic productivity or
increased public spending – is likely to
increase in the coming years. In the UK
alone, the state spends over £12bn a year
on health-related benefits and foregone
taxes, and employers face a £9bn bill.
This is at a time when the Health and
Safety Executive and Local Authorities
have less and less resources to spend on
enforcement and an increasingly ageing
workforce who can be more vulnerable
to injury and ill-health.
Well-recognised trends in work and
life – how mobile technology is blurring
the boundaries between life and work,
insecure work or people living more
isolated lives - do seem to be turning
up the pressure. In its Measuring
National Well-being report, the ONS
estimates 18.5 million people are
experiencing anxiety in the UK. And work
is a significant contributor to this state
of affairs. The Clock Off survey tells a
similar story, this time around the public
or third sector where 93% of workers
in social work, police, NHS, charities
and NGO’s were experiencing stress.
The regulator informs us that 440,000
people are experiencing stress, anxiety
or depression from work.
The health and safety profession has
also not always helped itself; too eager
to turn health and safety into a dry
management and compliance issue,
separate from engaging debate. Yet how
work impacts on health fundamentally
requires more discussion, openness and
involvement by everyone – from policy
makers, employers, trade unions, tech
developers, the media and, crucially, the
public.
With these deep economic and structural
trends in full flow, change will be difficult.
The British Safety Council, through its
campaign Speak Up, Stay Safe, has
released a hard-hitting video called The
Last Word on how stress can lead to
accidents. But more needs to be done
to create mentally healthy workplaces.
Government needs to give any industrial
strategy a human face to make work
‘work’ for people, employers need to
equip people with the skills to identify
stressors and design work that produces
healthy workplaces and, for all those
interested in the health and well-being
of the nation, our approach needs an
urgent rethink.
The British Safety Council will be
exploring these issues at Health
and Work in a Changing World,
our annual conference in London
on 5th October. Join us to get an
insight from a panel of experts and
to hear how leading businesses are
working to address the challenge
of managing health and work in a
changing world.
28

politics first | Leaders
ADVERTORIAL
Building a Britain that works
better for everyone
Sir Patrick McLoughlin MP, Chairman of the Conservative Party
The Isle of Man:
A partner for the future
“
As unionists, the Conservative
Party understands that we need to
bring stability to our country
“
That is in addition to tackling the burning social
injustices running through our society, which mean
that if you are born poor, you will die on average
nine years earlier than others. That if you are black,
you are treated more harshly by the criminal justice
system than if you are white. And that if you are at
a state school, you are less likely to reach the top
professions than if you are educated privately.
As someone who started out in the coal mines
of Cannock and has come through right up to the
Cabinet, I have a deep appreciation for how giving
everyone the chance to succeed – no matter their
background, gender, skin colour, sexuality, or post
code – has the potential to help transform lives.
That is why I am proud that under Theresa May’s
leadership, we are building an economy and a
society that works for everyone in Britain. So we do
not just maintain economic confidence and steer
the country through challenging times, but we bring
our society together – young and old, black and
white, sick and healthy, those with skills and those
without – and make sure that everyone can share
in the country’s wealth. That is the mission of the
Government.
Alongside our social agenda, our national
security remains paramount. Unlike the Labour
Party who, at a time when we face a number of
threats, would scrap our nuclear deterrent and
weaken our country’s defences, the Conservatives
are absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and
security of our citizens.
In the wake of the referendum result, now is the
time for stability. It has never been clearer that only
the Conservatives can deliver that.
There will be many challenges and
opportunities ahead for the United
Kingdom as it redefines itself outside
the European Union. As you gather
this week for your party conference
I want to take this opportunity to
highlight the steps the Isle of Man –
your near neighbour to the west – has
taken to position itself as a dynamic
and trusted partner in this period of
immense change.
A British Crown Dependency, the Isle
of Man has strong political, business,
cultural and historical ties to the UK.
Our economies are interlinked. So are
our futures.
The Isle of Man is a democratic, resilient
and resourceful country. We are a leading
international business centre known
for our innovation, professionalism
and long-standing policy of positive
engagement with international initiatives
and standards.
We have strong alliances with the City
of London and North West region, in
traditional sectors like financial services
and aerospace engineering, and also
in emerging industries like e-business,
offshore energy generation and crypto
currencies.
Through these ties we make a significant
contribution to the UK economy, setting
the Isle of Man apart from other small
jurisdictions and making us a modern
and progressive business partner with a
vibrant and successful economy.
The Isle of Man’s own relationship with
the EU exists only as a consequence
of the UK’s membership. Brexit will
inevitably impact upon us - our new
relationship will be determined by the
UK’s new agreement.
We are determined that the Isle of
Man will continue to grow as a leading
business centre, and we will be working
closely with the UK Government
throughout the negotiation process, to
ensure that the Isle of Man can continue
to function as an open and vibrant
economy, fully connected with the UK
and the wider world.
Our future success depends in part
on remaining diligent to our wider
international obligations. The Isle of
Man has been at the forefront of work
to promote global tax cooperation and
transparency, as well as to support
efforts to combat money laundering,
fraud and corruption.
Two years ago we were among the
first group of countries to commit to
share financial account information
automatically in accordance with the
Common Reporting Standard – an
initiative developed by the OECD,
working with G20 countries, and in
close co-operation with the EU.
Hon Allan Bell CBE,
Chief Minister of the Isle of Man
In April this year we committed to
establishing a central register of
beneficial ownership information – a
commitment we challenged others to
follow at the Anti-Corruption Summit
in London. We welcome the UK
Government’s recognition that the
Isle of Man is “far in advance of most
other countries” on the international tax
transparency agenda.
Our work does not stop here. Over the
next few years we must continue to play
our part in leading global standards
and must remain a confident and
progressive member of the international
community.
The Island is in a strong position to
face the challenges of the future as an
important business and cultural partner
to the United Kingdom.
While the Liberal Democrats want to ignore the
will of the British people over the EU entirely, Labour
has continued to prove over and over again that they
are too divided and chaotic to govern our country. It
is ordinary families who would pay the price for their
incompetence. Meanwhile in Scotland, the SNP are
focused on dividing the UK and have taken their eye
off the ball to the detriment of schools, hospitals
and public services.
But the Conservatives are clear: we will make a
success of Brexit and together, build a better Britain
that works for everyone.
30

politics first | Leaders
My vision of hope and the
next Labour Government
I have a serious plan for troubled times – a plan which has
its focus on winning the next general election in order to
rebuild and transform Britain.
At the heart of my strategy for a Labour Government is
a plan to grow our movement by organising communities
and using the most advanced techniques online and
offline. We must make Labour a living, breathing
movement in every corner of our country that gains the
trust of the British people and gives them real hope of a
better future.
Our overriding task is winning the next general election,
so that we can begin putting our progressive polices into
action. The growth in our party’s membership has been
incredible. Labour is now the largest political party in
Europe. Our greatest asset is our members, who will carry
our message across the country. I will make sure that our
membership is engaged and campaigning on the ground
to spread the message that no one, and nowhere, will ever
be left behind under a Labour Government.
The next Labour Government will make Britain thrive
again and give it a chance to build strong foundations. I
want to create a million homes and a million jobs across
the UK to help guarantee a decent standard of living for all.
Jeremy Corbyn MP,
Leader of Her Majesty’s
Official Opposition and Leader
of the Labour Party
Labour will build a Britain that works for everyday
people, rewarding their hard work and saving the NHS
that they rely on. The Labour Party created the NHS and
we are so proud of it; we will give our all into restoring
the damage that the Tory party has done to it. We will
end health service privatisation and bring services into a
secure, publicly-provided NHS – as it should be. We will
integrate the NHS and social care for older and disabled
people, funding dignity across the board and finally giving
our mental health services the time and money it so
desperately needs.
The next general election will be a contest between
the Tory Party austerity machine and its powerful allies,
and the social movement and trade unions underpinning
our reinvigorated Labour Party. That means every member
campaigning for every vote, using the skills and experience
of our membership to deliver our strong Labour message:
Britain needs a Labour Government focussed on delivering
for the whole country.
34
Working together, we can rebuild Britain as a country
where everyone plays a part, and everyone has a say. That
is both the country we need to be and the only way we
can succeed.

politics first | Leaders
Making Scotland’s voice heard
and providing strong and united
opposition at Westminster
36
Angus
Robertson MP,
Scottish National Party
Westminster Leader
The last few weeks and months have been
unprecedented. As we navigate the repercussions
of the vote to leave the European Union, which has
heralded a time of economic and constitutional
crisis, we have seen the Conservatives, as well as
Labour, succumb to party squabbles.
Indeed, in the time since the Scottish National
Party won an historic third Holyrood victory this
May - at a time when the Bank of England has had
to take drastic action to prop up the economy -
we have had a power vacuum at Westminster and
internal fighting within Labour, leaving the future of
the main opposition in doubt.
By contrast, Nicola Sturgeon has provided
strong leadership and direction through uncharted
territory, working to explore all options for retaining
Scotland’s EU status and ensuring that Scotland
stays open for business, while also getting on with
the job of governing the country.
In the SNP, we will do everything we can to
retain Scotland’s membership of the EU, and in
Westminster, as Group Leader, I lead our MPs who
continue to act as a strong and united opposition to
the Tory government during this crucial time.
The EU referendum vote was indicative of the
democratic deficit Scotland faces by being part of
the UK. We have a deep, growing and increasingly
obvious deficit at Westminster as our politics continue
to diverge from the rest of the UK. While SNP MPs
are working to provide a strong, united and effective
opposition to the Tory government, there have been far
too many occasions where on the big issues, Scotland
is being ignored, outvoted or overruled, and Tory
policies are simply being imposed.
We saw it at the General Election, when Scotland
voted overwhelmingly for centre-left parties only
to be lumbered once again with a right-wing Tory
government with absolutely no mandate in Scotland.
We saw it at the Budget, where the UK government
imposed austerity and draconian welfare cuts against
Scotland’s wishes – taking funds away from public
services, communities and families, the poorest
and most vulnerable in order to fund tax breaks for
millionaires – a policy completely incompatible
with Scotland’s progressive values and outlook.
We opposed the bombing of Syria, but the UK
government went ahead anyway. We voted to protect
our fair share of vulnerable child refugees but the
UK government chose to walk by, instead. We
opposed restrictions on trade unions and workers’
rights, but our view was brushed aside. We wanted
to strengthen not weaken human rights but the
government is ploughing ahead with scrapping the
Human Rights Act. We backed democratic reforms
on the House of Lords and for votes at 16, but the UK
government rejected these changes.
The Westminster parties had many months to
plan for the potential of a Brexit vote but it is clear
that the Tory government, the Labour opposition,
and those that led the campaign to leave the EU,
utterly failed to do so.
They have taken the country and the economy
to the edge of a cliff and then shirked their
responsibilities, leaving Nicola Sturgeon as the only
party leader showing any leadership, and the SNP as
the only strong and united party working to ensure
the best for Scotland during this tumultuous time.
The SNP will continue to make Scotland’s voice
heard, but if the UK government and Westminster
parties continue to act against Scotland’s wishes
by taking Scotland out of the EU against its will,
they should not be surprised if the Scottish people
conclude that independence is the only viable
option.

politics first | Leaders
The purpose of the Liberal Democrats
is at an all-time high
ADVERTORIAL
Changing the private
rented sector for good
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Tim Farron MP,
Leader of the Liberal
Democrat Party
You realise how turbulent the times are when I am now
pretty much the veteran among Westminster party
leaders – even though last year’s conference was my
debut as leader of the Liberal Democrats. As the only
UK-wide party committed to protecting Britain’s place
in Europe, my priority is to preserve our most vital
links with the European Union. We must remain in the
single market to safeguard trade, but we also need to
guarantee free movement for Britons living abroad and
for EU citizens contributing to the UK. Worker rights,
environmental safeguards and cross-border security
are among areas we believe are best dealt with at a
European level. Much of that will be debated at our
conference, including specific areas such as how to
save ERASMUS.
It is now clear that there was no Brexit strategy
– or another £350 million a week for the NHS - and
ministers are desperately trying to stick back together
the vase they have just smashed against the wall. The
problem is that they do not seem to agree on how to
glue it back toegther, or, indeed, on whether to throw
what is left at the wall all over again.
I am delighted that Nick Clegg has agreed to return
to frontline politics as our Brexit spokesperson, and
over the summer he has been working on a series of
papers setting out the effects of Brexit, and asking the
government some very pointed questions. He has been
helped by a group of experts (experts are not derided
in our party). Grants for vital scientific research,
agricultural subsidies, EU funding for infrastructure
projects including the building of schools – so much
work in the UK has been thrown into doubt, and we are
pressuring Theresa May to protect it.
But despite massive uncertainty unleashed by
Brexit, this would not be a Liberal Democrat conference
if it were not brimming with further policy debate, both
domestic and international. Tackling homelessness
and corporate corruption, saving school governors
and university grants, reforming welfare and protecting
liberty while maintaining security, will all be debated –
and occasionally, no doubt, argued over.
My domestic priorities remain improving education
and tackling the housing crisis. There is clear
generational unfairness, with young people denied
opportunities which those of my generation enjoyed.
I was really proud that Liberal Democrats, in coalition,
delivered free early learning, the pupil premium (giving
extra money to educate disadvantaged children), free
school meals and a national apprenticeship scheme.
But it is time to go further.
To compete in a global economy that is increasingly
dominated by technology, young people need and
deserve better training. Their wages are lagging,
while renting – let alone buying – is increasingly
unaffordable. It is a small thing but I am passionate
about a Liberal Democrat campaign to stop estate
agents double charging tenants an - often very
expensive - arrangement fee on top of the one agents
have already charged landlords. But fundamentally, we
need to increase the supply of homes, including social
housing.
Internationally, I will step up my campaign to
enable 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children to
be allowed into the UK. Ministers responded to
pressure by announcing that they would allow in some
refugees, but of concrete plans, we have heard nothing.
Meanwhile, concerning the one EU initiative which
the government does seem enthusiastic about is the
sending to Turkey of huge numbers of refugees. Given
that Turkey has suspended human rights, that cannot be
justified morally.
So there are a vast number of crucial causes for we,
Liberal Democrats, to get stuck into. But we go into
the conference season in great spirits. While Labour
tears itself apart and Conservatives wrestle with the
consequences of their disastrous disunity which has
endangered our place in Europe, our Liberal Democrat
fightback is gathering pace. Scarcely a month after the
referendum result, 17,000 new members had joined
our ranks. That followed successful local elections,
which saw us make the most gains.
I do not underestimate the scale of our challenge.
But with a growing, confident party that has no
competitors in the centre ground of British politics,
the opportunities are immense for an optimistic, fair,
economically credible party. And with the future of
Europe and our young people at stake, the Liberal
Democrats have never had a stronger – or higher -
purpose.
Eoin Donnelly, Housing Director at Trinity, explains to
Marcus Papadopoulos that it is through combining
commercial business and charitable supported
housing that real improvements will be seen in the
housing market for generations to come
Q For years, the homeless sector has stayed fairly much the
same, providing housing and support using government
grants, subsidies and fundraising. Why does this have to
change?
The outlook for people at risk of homelessness is bleak and
getting bleaker. Rough sleeping has doubled since 2010 because
services have been closed due to lack of funds, while the traditional
model of supported housing - subsidised by grants - is no longer
viable.
We have found that we cannot rely on the government to provide
all the finance for the level of support which is needed for people
suffering the effects of homelessness - and neither should we.
Resources are scarce and supported housing providers need to
ensure that they can cover the costs of the services they provide,
regardless of future changes to government policy.
Q How can housing charities change their approach to
protect themselves from future changes to government
policy?
We have found that housing insecurity is no longer reserved
for the most vulnerable people in society - the housing crisis in
the UK effects everybody. PwC reported that, by 2025, more
than half of those under 40 will be living in properties owned by
private landlords, which means that the way private rented sector
operates needs an innovative new approach to remove the fear
and uncertainty from renting, for both tenants and landlords.
At Trinity, we have developed a new model, which uses
commercially successful private lettings to change how supported
housing is funded. That approach reduces the need for further
regulation of the market and ensures that homeless charities can
shield themselves from further reforms of housing benefit, which
would affect their ability to provide supported housing to some of
the most vulnerable people in society.
Q It seems counter intuitive to use the private rented sector
to end homelessness so how does it work?
What everyone wants from housing is the same: from the person
who is living on the streets to the landlord wanting to let out their
property - we all want a safe and secure home, trust between
tenants and landlords, good value-for-money and for there to be
no fear or uncertainty around lettings.
So, we have launched Parker Morris, a lettings agency which
embodies a sustainable future for housing in metropolitan areas
in the UK. We provide market value, excellent quality housing
to professional sharers whilst ensuring that landlords can feel
assured that they will receive a guaranteed income and that their
property will be well looked after by experienced and trustworthy
property managers. The profits from this business are reinvested
for social gain: they go to Trinity, to fund any shortfall in the funding
for their supported housing for people who have been homeless.
Q Parker Morris is an interesting name. Why did you choose
it?
In the 1960s, Parker Morris established a set of standards for
social housing to comply with, which became the benchmark
for the following decades and meant that people living in social
housing lived in an environment which allowed them to flourish,
aspire and achieve more in their lives. We found that intriguing,
especially as the government later abandoned the Parker Morris
standards in favour of letting the free market define the standards
for housing. Now, in 2016, we are establishing a new benchmark
for the housing sector: trustworthy, professional and honest
lettings whose profit is invested for social gain.
Q What does the future look like for the private rented
sector?
Without significant, and perhaps revolutionary, changes to the
national housing market, it is clear that the private rented sector
will grow and grow over the coming decades. We believe that
Parker Morris not only offers a new way of providing private rented
properties - giving both tenants and landlords what they want and
need - but also provides a real solution to funding shortfalls in
supported housing provision. By reinvesting our profits for social
gain, with a supported housing provider, we are joining the rest of
the community to end homelessness; this model can be replicated
to change the housing market for good in all metropolitan areas.
To get in touch with Eoin, email eoin@parker-morris.co.uk,
or visit www.parker-morris.co.uk; or, to find out more
about the work that Trinity does to end homelessness,
visit www.wearetrinity.org.uk
38

politics first | Corridors
Stepping up to maintain
the UK’s global responsibilities
Michael Fallon, Secretary of State for Defence and Conservative MP
for Sevenoaks
The new political season, ushered in by the Party
Conferences, will see UK defence confront deepening
challenges in a darkening world. We are witnessing an
arc of instability spreading across the globe. We have
seen terrorist atrocities across the globe, in places as
far apart as Orlando and Brussels, Paris and Ankara,
Baghdad and Munich.
42
Daesh continues to kill, bomb and
brutalise in both Iraq and Syria, and
continues to plan attacks in Western Europe.
Russia persists in fomenting insurgency in
Ukraine and in trying to destabilise its NATO
neighbours. Last year’s conference seems a
lifetime away.
Despite that darkening outlook, Britain
is determined to maintain its global
responsibilities. Brexit will not change our
commitment to the international rulesbased
system. Far from stepping back, we
are stepping up. Three months on from the
European Union vote, we are doing more in
the world, not less. At the Farnborough Air
Show, where the Lightning II Strike Fighter
made its dazzling debut, I announced more
multi-billion pound investments in attack
helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft.
In Warsaw, at the NATO summit, the UK
committed 500 troops to Estonia to defend
NATO’s eastern flank and pledged to
continue transforming the Alliance to meet
the challenges both from East and the South.
And in Washington, at the Counter-Daesh
conference, we agreed to press home our
advantage against Daesh – who are now on
the back foot having lost around 40 per cent
of the territory they once held.
Nowhere has our determination to
continue leading on international security
been more in evidence than in the House
of Commons itself. This July, the new
Prime Minister led the debate to renew
our independent nuclear deterrent. After
the speeches ended, politicians from all
parties came together to vote by 472 to 117
in favour of renewal – an increase of more
than 100 since Parliament last voted on our
commitment almost a decade ago. At a time
when Russia is upgrading its nuclear forces,
increasing the frequency of its snap nuclear
exercises and threatening to base nuclear
forces in the Crimea and in Kaliningrad, the
protection offered by our deterrent has never
been more essential. And with rogue states
like North Korea testing nuclear weapons, we
cannot be sure what threats will emerge in
the future.
We are now starting to build the next
generation of nuclear submarines. Coming
into service in the early 2030s, they will see
us through to the 2060s, and help us deter
the most extreme threats to our way of life.
And our deterrent is not just vital for the
safety of our own citizens but for those of our
allies, too. The UK, together with France and
the US, provides NATO’s nuclear umbrella –
the ultimate protection for all 28 members.
Three separate centres of decision-making
that complicate the calculations of any
potential adversary and make a nuclear attack
less likely.
So Britain will continue to keep our
people safe at home and work with our
Allies and partners to reinforce our security
abroad. Last year, some 80,000 soldiers
deployed on more than 383 commitments.
More than 30,000 sailors deployed, on over
700 ship visits, from Africa to Asia, Europe to
Latin America. And more than 10,000 Royal
Air Force personnel deployed, in over 60
countries, on operations, training exercises
and defence engagement. This year our
personnel are matching that effort, striking
at the terrorists, providing humanitarian aid,
and training troops around the globe.
They do that backed by a defence
budget that will rise every year until the
end of the decade, with a £178 billion
plan to provide them with the equipment
they need to keep Britain safe. Those are
important ways in which we, as politicians,
can support them. Ultimately though, it
is the bravery, dedication and excellence
of those men and women that will ensure
that Britain remains strong and safe. That
is something we know we can rely on,
whatever the next 12 months brings.

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Is the British military still
able to punch above its weight?
Human Rights: an inconvenient truth
for Westminster
Clive Lewis, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence and Labour MP
for Norwich South
The phrase “punching above their weight”, to describe
the UK’s armed forces, was first used by Douglas Hurd,
in 1993, and has been regularly re-used since by British
politicians and journalists, alike. It obviously catches
something about our national relationship with our
armed forces – a genuine pride and admiration for their
professionalism and skill.
Dr Paul Monaghan, Scottish National Party MP for Caithness,
Sutherland and Easter Ross
The European Convention on Human Rights was signed
in Rome in 1950. The Convention was agreed in the dark
shadow of Nazism and as part of the post-war efforts by
the Allies to ensure that the horrors of the 1940s would
never be repeated. Some consider the Convention to
represent the most successful of the European Union’s
endeavours.
But, as others have pointed out, it also hints
at a certain insecurity about the UK’s role in the
world. On the one hand, the UK enjoys many of
the privileges of a global power – a permanent
seat on the Security Council, major influence
in the world’s most powerful military alliance,
NATO, and an extremely close military alliance
with the only true global superpower, the USA.
In addition to that, it is, of course, still one of the
world’s largest military powers in its own right.
And yet it is clear that the UK is not a global
power any more and, as such, it sometimes
feels as if we do not quite belong at the top
table - that we are somehow bluffing.
So what does it mean when we say that
we punch above our weight? It is worth
remembering that when Douglas Hurd said the
phrase, he was talking about how it was the UK’s
key role within wider international alliances
(specifically NATO) that gave its armed forces
the ability to project power beyond the narrow
military definition.
I would argue that that is still the best way
to understand Britain’s ability to have influence
beyond its apparent means. The UK is at the very
centre of a web of international organisations
which allow for the projection of soft power.
Those range from the Commonwealth to the
G8, from the Council of Europe to the OSCE,
and they include institutions like the BBC and
the UN. So long as we remember that it is those
institutions and organisations that allow us a
unique ability to set the global agenda, and to
participate in future-shaping events, then we
genuinely can have disproportionate influence.
However, we must always be extremely
cautious about simplifying the phrase into
believing that somehow our armed forces, on
their own, punch above their weight.
At the risk of getting into semantics, it is
almost a definitional problem; if military assets
are capable of achieving a given outcome, then
they must have possessed the power to do this.
Apart from the occasional fluke, armed forces
will punch at exactly the weight they carry.
And no sensible commander bases a military
strategy on crossing their fingers and hoping for
a fluke.
And that is not just a technical argument. If
we start to believe that, for some reason, our
armed forces are able to magically perform
beyond the material reality of their numbers, the
quality of their equipment and their training, for
instance, then we have taken the first step on the
path to hubris and military failure.
The resulting damage will not just be to
intangibles like our national reputation. The
men and women at the sharp end will pay a
direct price for delusions of grandeur. Sir John
Chilcott’s report laid out the reality that when
Tony Blair ordered the British Army into Iraq,
it was simply not equipped for the job. Land
Rovers designed to withstand bricks and bottles
thrown during riots in Northern Ireland did not
punch above their weight when they drove over
massive IEDs - they disintegrated, along with
the soldiers inside of them.
Moreover, when the Army found itself
fighting in Afghanistan, too, it simply did not
have the numbers to achieve this without
imposing extra costs on its ordinary fighting
men and women. We know that levels of posttraumatic
stress in combat veterans is linked
to the ratio between time spent in the combat
zone and time spent out of it, and when an army
is asked to do a job that it does not have the
numbers to carry out, one of the first things that
happens is that this ratio narrows.
When we claim that our armed forces can
punch above their weight, we must be very
careful that we are not casually tossing that
extra weight onto the shoulders of the people
at the bottom of the hierarchy. Those soldiers
deserve our fullest support, not to be stressed to
breaking point in order to preserve our national
illusions.
The rights afforded through the
Convention have, in law, the same meaning
as the Human Rights Act 1998, and viceversa.
In very crude terms, you cannot have
one without the other. Nevertheless, the UK
Government has developed aspirations which
seek to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998
and replace it with a “Bill of Rights”. The
aspiration, however, appears to have stalled,
perhaps because it has become increasingly
clear that the UK Supreme Court cannot
exercise supremacy over the European Court
of Human Rights, nor can the Supreme Court
act as final arbiter in regard to human rights.
Unhelpfully for the UK Government,
further substantive challenges to the plan
to roll back human rights protection are
glaringly obvious in The Government of
Wales Act 2006, The Scotland Act 1998 and
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 because the
European Convention on Human Rights is
incorporated into these devolution statues.
That means that application of the Human
Rights Act 1998 is devolved and the
devolution Acts therefore provide the people
of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales with
an additional layer of protection through the
rights found in the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is
particularly interesting because the human
rights protections, which it enshrines, enact
the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, the
Northern Ireland Act explicitly states that “no
Minister holds power to perform any act that
is incompatible with human rights delivered
through the Convention.” The words “no
Minister” are instructive!
It has been argued that any attempt to
repeal or reform the Human Rights Act
would place the UK Government in breach
of its obligations under the Good Friday
Agreement as a matter of international law.
The agreement is, after all, a settlement struck
between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
In fact, and let us be very clear, the Good
Friday Agreement is more properly termed
the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, an
international peace treaty registered with the
United Nations on 10th April 1998.
In addition to legal questions, there are,
of course, political sensitivities surrounding
the role of human rights in the Irish peace
process, which the Convention has gone so
far to enable. Indeed, the role of human rights
in the peace process was reemphasised
most recently in the 2015 Stormont House
Agreement.
Setting aside the significant hurdles
of peace treaties and international law
for just a moment, it is almost certain
that the UK Government’s aspiration
of repealing the Human Rights Act will
encounter challenges from the Scottish
Government as a consequence of the Sewell
Convention. That convention states that the
UK Parliament may not legislate on areas of
devolved responsibility without the consent
of the respective devolved legislature.
In practice, any attempt by the UK
Government to initiate legislative change in
respect of human rights (a devolved matter)
in Scotland, would require the agreement of
the Scottish Parliament through a Legislative
Consent Motion.
That dual system of human rights
protection means that while the UK
Government is technically able to repeal the
Human Rights Act 1998, it is something of an
inconvenient truth that the Act’s repeal would
not, by itself, end the domestic incorporation
of the European Convention on Human Rights
in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
I would dare to suggest that the prospect
of the Scottish Parliament agreeing a
Legislative Consent Motion to repeal human
rights legislation, which has done so much
to promote the wellbeing and safety of the
people of Scotland, is slim.
If the UK Government wishes to go further
and withdraw from the European Convention
on Human Rights altogether, it must also
start to develop policy aspirations to amend
the devolution settlements. That aspiration,
too, would require legislative consent and
create a constitutional quagmire.
This June, the people of Scotland and
Northern Ireland voted to remain within the
EU. The Scots and the Irish are progressive
peoples and place great value both on their
EU citizenship and the European Convention
on Human Rights.
44
45

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Prison reform is the answer
to reducing crime
A Conference call for people
to come back to the Tory Party
Alistair Carmichael, Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland
Ask any politician about what they would do to cut crime
and the answers will come swiftly and will be glib and
predictable: more police, more community police and
more police officers on the beat.
Lord Norman Tebbit, Former Chairman of the Conservative Party and
cabinet minister in Margaret Thatcher’s government
It is only a year since Prime Minister David Cameron
stood to the cheers of the Tory faithful at the Conservative
Party Conference.
Ask any professional working in the
criminal justice field and you will get a much
more diverse and subtle range of answers.
Most, I suspect, will have reform of our
prison system at, or near, the top of their lists.
Without that, and no matter how many police
officers you have on our streets, those who
they catch will be stuck in a revolving door
of custody, liberation, police cells, courts and
back to custody.
In fact, if you are in the market for longterm
solutions, then start spending at preschool
age and take a long hard look at our
care system.
Fifty per cent of young people in British
prisons have been through the care system at
some point in their lives. Forty-nine per cent
of all prisoners have at least one identifiable
mental health issue, and forty-seven per cent
have no qualifications at all. Fifteen per cent
were homeless at the time of their arrest.
Many struggle with substance dependency
and more than half have English and Maths
skills which are comparable with primary
school children.
By the time they end up in prison or juvenile
detention, you can be fairly sure that most will
have fallen through just about every safety net
which the state has provided to catch them.
Prison can be the point to catch them and start
the business of helping them to turn their lives
around. It is not easy, it is not quick and it is
not cheap but, then again, neither is the cost
of crime on our communities.
Instead of warehousing criminals in
prisons that do nothing to address the
aspects of their lives that put them there
in the first place, we could be doing it all
very differently. When I made my living as
a criminal court solicitor, we said that our
clients were either the mad, the sad or the
bad. On any sensible view, only the latter of
those three categories ought to be in prison.
Those with mental health or addiction
problems should be looking for solutions in
the health service, rather than the criminal
justice system.
Others offend because they lack the ability
to achieve and hold down a job. More often
than not, the underlying cause there is poor
basic literacy and numeracy skills. You may
argue that those problems should have been
addressed years earlier and you would be
right but, rather than getting hung up on what
might have been, deal with what is and do
what you can to make it better.
In recent years, we have, at last, started
to see some proper attention given to the
victims of crime. The best way of helping
victims is to operate a system which anyone
who is a victim of crime can have some
confidence in will prevent them from falling
victim again. That is where prison reform
comes into play.
That is why, when Michael Gove as Justice
Secretary announced that he was at long last
going to do something about our prisons, I
told him that if he was serious about doing
the difficult stuff and making our prisons fit
for the twenty-first century, he would have my
support and that of my party.
For what it is worth, I believe that Michael
Gove and David Cameron were sincere
when they said that they were going to do
something better for our prisons but, in
truth, we shall never know for definite. It
is now for Liz Truss and Theresa May to
show if they are prepared to do the right but
difficult things to fix our prisons. My offer of
support still stands for them as it did for their
predecessors. Make no mistake – tackling
a problem as big as this presents challenges
for opposition as well as government. A
mature and bipartisan approach to politics
will be necessary. I am up for that.
He was the man who had seen off the
challenges of both his Liberal Democrat
coalition partners and the Labour leader
Ed Miliband to win an overall majority,
albeit a thin one, to govern for the next five
years. His carefully crafted referendum
promise had held off the UKIP challenge,
the contagion of coalition had destroyed the
Liberal Democrats and the SNP had done for
Labour.
This October, Prime Minister Theresa
May and her Chancellor Philip Hammond
will stand where twelve months ago stood
Mr. Cameron and Mr. Osborne, both scythed
down by the referendum they had sharpened
to destroy UKIP’s Nigel Farage and divide
Labour.
I am glad to be too old and too Thatcherite
to have been asked to manage this year’s
conference. That is not just because of
the scale of the challenge in uniting the
Conservative Party in support of a clear post-
Brexit agenda and healing the scars and
divisions left by the acrimony of referendum
campaign. It is far more a matter of the way
in which the party conference has changed
over the thirty years since I used it to launch
the Conservative revival, which culminated
in Margaret Thatcher’s spectacular third
consecutive election triumph of 1987 only
nine months later.
Back then, thirty years ago, the
conference was a gathering of the grassroots
activists who were the very being of the Tory
Party beyond Westminster. They gathered in
their thousands to pack the great halls of the
seaside towns of Blackpool, Bournemouth
Torquay and Brighton. They came not just
to hear the speeches of the leaders but to
discuss and help form policy.
The seaside towns were chosen not just
for the size of their conference halls, but
also for the hotels and boarding houses
to accommodate the representatives. Of
course, there was room for commercial
stalls for business bold enough to show
their support and the pollsters and public
relations firms who lived largely on the
political process, but they were an add on,
not the focus of the event.
Under the relentless pace of social
change, there are now a lot more sources of
social intercourse than the local Conservative
Association annual dinner and dance. That,
and the growing hunger of the leadership to
centralise power within Central Office, has
tumbled membership from approaching half
a million in its post-war heyday to 150,000,
or even fewer, today.
Aspirant Members of Parliament no
longer need a record of holding office in local
government or Conservative associations,
canvassing or door knocking for support.
The route now is from school to university, to
Westminster, then bag carrier or researcher
and on to the Central Office A-list of wouldbe
candidates and then the House of
Commons. Then a year or two as Chairman
of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sex
Discrimination in a banana republic and on
to be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Drains.
Will Facebook and Twitter finally push all
grassroots political activity into the mists
of the past so that the party conference
becomes just a media and commercial
event?
The referendum gave the electors
a feeling of power. They over-rode the
Westminster Establishment. At Birmingham,
I hope Mrs. May and her colleagues will use
the conference to inspire and empower the
aspirant, caring, earning, learning, saving,
investing people of Britain to come back to
our party.
46
47

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
The circular economy: the Government
needs to step up to the plate
The Northern Powerhouse
is on the ascent
Kerry McCarthy, a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and
Labour MP for Bristol East
It came as a surprise to many of us to learn that just
one per cent of our takeaway coffee cups actually get
recycled – uncovered by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s
excellent “War on Waste”.
Andrea Jenkyns, Conservative MP for Morley and Outwood
The launch of the Northern Powerhouse solidified
David Cameron and George Osborne’s commitment to
addressing the historic neglect of the North from the last
Labour Government. For too long, our Northern cities
were allowed to stagnate, with productivity falling and
people trapped with few prospects and few opportunities
to better their lot in life.
Consumers increasingly expect businesses
to ensure that their packaging is recyclable,
and many feel they have been misled by coffee
chains into thinking this.
But currently, there are too few incentives for
producers to make their packaging recyclable,
leaving local councils and the taxpayer to foot
the bill. England stubbornly remains a “throwaway
society”, with litter levels hardly budging
in over a decade.
Rethinking the way we manage resources,
and moving towards a circular economy - which
reuses, recycles and remanufactures, making
the most of precious resources - is not only an
environmental necessity, but a real opportunity
for new businesses and jobs.
A major study from last year estimated
that a more ambitious policy programme
for the circular economy could deliver half a
million jobs (gross), with a net reduction in
unemployment of over 100,000 by 2030. That
potential for creating new jobs, especially in
lower to medium-skilled occupations, would
particularly benefit regions such as the West
Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber and the
North East - many of these communities voted
to leave the European Union and are suffering
from unemployment and skills shortages.
Without an ambitious policy programme
or waste strategy, the Government is not only
squandering those economic opportunities, but
failing to address some urgent challenges facing
the sector.
After years of flat-lining performance, English
recycling rates have fallen for the first time since
records began. There are problems with the
quality of recycling materials collected and too
many different recycling collection systems in
operation across the country, with investment in
infrastructure reportedly not great, and likely to
get worse.
Lots of our recyclable material is still
exported overseas, as the growth of recycling
infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the
quantity of recovered materials. And waste crime
is flourishing – exacerbated by some cashstrapped
local authorities having to close tips or
introduce charges for waste disposal.
Voices within the sector are becoming
increasingly vocal about this policy vacuum.
Many wonder why the former Environment
Minister, Rory Stewart, was still in “listening
mode” a year after his appointment.
And now the impact of Brexit is causing real
worries in a sector where EU legislation has
been a key driver over the past two decades,
providing long-term planning for investment in
waste infrastructure and innovation. It is now
uncertain if the UK will implement the European
Commission’s Circular Economy package: an
important package of measures that will shape
EU progress and set a level playing field in this
sector for the next decade.
Experts are hoping that Brexit could be the
shock the UK needs to take resource policy more
seriously.
But I have real worries that with Andrea
Leadsom now at the helm - a Brexiteer who
argued that a vote to leave would allow the UK
to “reduce burdensome EU red-tape” – DEFRA
will seek to reduce what she sees as burdens
on business, from recycling targets to producer
responsibility requirements.
The Government’s ideological aversion to
regulation risks hamstringing progress towards
a more circular economy. The UK should
be leading from the front when it comes to
regulation which protects our environment, and
creates the conditions for new businesses to
enter the market and for established companies
to invest for the long-term.
While unnecessary regulations or burdens
on business should be removed, we know that
good regulation – from the landfill tax to the
Climate Change Act – can create the conditions
for new businesses to enter the market, and for
established companies to invest for the longterm.
In Wales, Labour in government has
demonstrated how ambitious thinking and
political commitment can drive progress and
boost growth and jobs, how intelligent regulation
sends the right signals to business and can
shape markets of the future. With a much
stronger policy platform, it has already met the
EU’s 2020 household recycling target, not only
leading the other UK nations but making it fourth
in Europe.
We now need the UK Government to step up
to the mark, too.
To correspond with the policy, we saw the
creation of a specific Northern Powerhouse
portfolio, supported across Government, to
deliver on the Government’s aims. Under the
leadership of the previous Minister, James
Wharton, the project has grown from strength
to strength.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister
has appointed Andrew Percy to the Northern
Powerhouse brief in the Department for
Communities and Local Government. Andrew
is a committed, experienced campaigner who,
I have no doubt, will be a superb minister and I
look forward to supporting him however I can.
I also welcome that reaffirmation in support
for the Northern Powerhouse from the new
Prime Minister, alongside her commitment to
a country that works for all.
The project has already starting
delivering real results across the North,
and has begun to rebalance the country’s
economy that has so often been skewed in
favour of the South East. That rebalancing is
taking place across every sector and every
region, from tech and digital to tourism and
transport, opening up our Northern towns and
cities to new investment and new possibilities.
In transport, we have in place new
franchises for the Northern and TransPennine
rail routes, which are going to bring hundreds
of brand new carriages, electrification and
increased capacity across the network. With
£13 billion of extra investment going into
transport, and the creation of Transport for the
North with its own £300 million of funding and
underpinned by statute, the North’s creaking,
long-neglected transport infrastructure
is finally going to receive the injection it
needs to bring it up-to-date with the latest
technology. There will also be new High
Speed rail links and £400 million to support
small and medium-sized enterprises who will
take advantage of those developments.
The Government is also working with
us local MPs to bring the improvements to
our own areas. In my constituency, Morley
Station has been historically neglected, and
we are now in the farcical situation where
disabled access is only possible to one
platform. I am delighted that the previous
Rail Minister acknowledged those failings
and I am committed to working with the
Government to address them; this is the story
across our region.
Of course, real change cannot be entirely
driven centrally from Westminster. We need
decisions to be being taken as close as
possible to the people we elect, something I
campaigned for in the European Referendum
and something that has been spearheaded by
the Northern Powerhouse. By promising to
create elected mayors with stronger powers,
we can ensure that local decision-making is
powerful, effective and accountable.
Already, five devolution deals have been
agreed in areas like Greater Manchester,
Sheffield and the North East - and more are
on the way. The deals which have been struck
already cover 54 per cent of the North and
will be backed by £4 billion of extra funding
- a game changer. That is a historic shift in
the governance of regions and cities and will
ensure that we have stronger, more resilient
local economies. There has also already
been £2.8 billion worth of investment in new
Growth Deals, with more on the horizon.
The vote to leave the European Union
also brings with it new possibilities. With
the new Department for International Trade
set to take the message around the world
that Britain is open for business, there is
a myriad of opportunities for more foreign
direct investment into the North. A £24
billion pitch-book of potential foreign direct
investments is already in place, and the
Government has committed £15 million to
support more trade missions to support the
North. The Northern Powerhouse will ensure
the North is at the forefront to take advantage
of the opportunities that Brexit offers and will
be key to ensuring Brexit is a success.
As a Northern MP, I am proud to be part of
a Government that is committed to the North,
and this Government has done more than ever
to ensure that it has the best opportunities to
succeed.
48
49

politics first | Corridors
Confronting and defeating
extremism in schools
Angela Rayner, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Shadow Minister for
Women and Equalities and Labour MP for Ashton-under-Lyne
Extremism has no place in our schools. In the aftermath
of both the Trojan Horse scandal and the rise of racist
bullying post-European Union referendum, we must
remain alert to the risk of our children being radicalised.
50
Sensibly, the Government’s counterextremism
strategy - Prevent - states that Islamic
extremism is not the only threat that we need to
counteract. We have seen, across the European
continent, right-wing extremism gaining a
foothold in response to Islamic extremism - they
are different sides of the same coin.
Here, in the UK, we need to be on our guard
against both. The commendable aim of Prevent
is “to stop people from becoming terrorists or
supporting terrorism.” But there are problems
with how that is being implemented.
Statutory guidance demands that schools
“assess the risk of children being drawn into
terrorism, including support for extremist ideas
that are part of terrorist ideology.”
Last summer, the Government forced
schools to have “due regard to the need to
prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”
Staff, in schools, are required to comply with the
statutory guidance and provide information to
Prevent officers.
But at a time of real cuts in school funding,
staff shortages and the threat of forced
academisation, teachers, alone, cannot be
responsible for ‘policing’ children in their care.
We need an even-handed, holistic approach,
working sensitively with both schools and sixth
form colleges, but also reaching out into all
our communities, to challenge violence and
extremism, wherever it rears its ugly head.
Schools are diverse places for children to
learn and thrive. No child should experience
harassment, abuse or intolerance at school. But
racist bullying remains a reality, even though
many schools have strong anti-bullying and
harassment policies in place.
The actions of various extreme right-wing and
neo-Nazi groups show that, alongside Islamic
extremism, we must also remain vigilant to the
risk of right-wing radicalisation of our children.
Greater emphasis must be given to tackling
the worrying rise in racist and xenophobic
attacks in the aftermath of the EU referendum,
which has been aimed at EU nationals and
members of the BAME community living in the
UK. The True Vision website has seen a 57 per
cent increase in reporting to its website in the
aftermath of the referendum result.
But taking preventative action in the field of
counter-terrorism is fraught with difficulty, even
for highly trained experts.
Teachers should receive vigorous training
to equip them with the knowledge and skills to
identify children at risk of radicalisation. However,
this Government is failing to adequately train
staff. Teachers have specifically criticised the
training videos provided by the Home Office,
calling them “unclear” and “unnecessarily
overly stylised”. And the General Secretary
of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers
has criticised the training as ‘‘poor quality and
sometimes factually incorrect information.”
The House of Commons joint committee on
human rights pressed for an urgent review into
Prevent, citing numerous causes for concern.
Teachers have, overwhelmingly, backed motions
calling for it to be scrapped. There are concerns
that Prevent relies too heavily on racial profiling
and can legitimise Islamophobia.
Even the UN has raised concerns about
Prevent, saying it creates a divisive environment
by further alienating “at risk” children, and
could end up promoting extremism, rather than
countering it.
Failing to tackle those issues in the classroom
will further strain community tensions and only
provide fertile ground for radicalisation. When
it comes to children, we cannot get it wrong.
We need a complete overhaul of the training
provided to teachers - and it needs to be properly
resourced.
But we need to go further.
Firstly, Labour will put human rights at the
centre of its counter-extremism policy. We
need a cohesive and inclusive strategy that
effectively trains teachers to spot signs of
radicalisation, whether Islamic fundamentalism
or right-wing xenophobia.
Secondly, we need a sharper focus on
community projects in schools to create an
inclusive environment for all of our children.
And, above all, we need to promote far
greater engagement and support within religious
communities so that the voices of moderation
are heard loud and clear.
Community and faith leaders, teachers and
elected representatives at every level, all have
a role to play, if we are to tackle the very real
threats we face as a nation.

politics first | Corridors
Delivering for everyday transport
users is my ultimate objective
Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport and Conservative MP
for Epsom and Ewell
After a summer of extraordinary political drama, it was an
honour to be appointed Secretary of State for Transport
by the new Prime Minister. And it was a particular
honour to follow in the steps of Patrick McLoughlin, the
longest serving Transport Secretary for many decades,
who has done a brilliant job in making the case for new
infrastructure and putting plans into operation.
As a result, we have embarked on the
biggest road and rail investment programmes
for generations, and we are on track to start
building HS2 next year.
I have made clear that I have no intention
of backing away from those projects. As
Theresa May has indicated, we will be a
government that brings the country together,
and helps everyone in our society to get on.
Transport has a unique power to strengthen
the links between people and places, bridge
the economic gaps between regions, and
spread the benefits of growth and investment.
So projects like HS2 are vital for our future
prosperity and I will give them the support
they need.
Of course, building new infrastructure
takes time - projects that were on the
drawing board when I was Shadow Transport
Secretary, over a decade ago, are only now
being delivered – so continuity and stability
in transport policy will be one of my priorities.
Yet we must also be ready to seize
new opportunities wherever they arise. In
particular, Britain’s vote to leave the European
Union is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to
reshape our country’s future, and bolster our
standing in the world.
Here, too, transport has an important
contribution to make. By enhancing our air
and maritime links, we will show that we
are open for business, and that we welcome
investment from around the world. That is
why this July I was pleased to announce a
major expansion of London City Airport, with
investment of £344 million by the airport’s
operators. An even more crucial decision
awaits on runway capacity in the south east.
52

politics first | Corridors
Delivering for everyday transport
users is my ultimate objective
Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport and Conservative MP
for Epsom and Ewell
54
“
I want to retain a sharp focus
on those to whom I am ultimately
accountable – the everyday
transport user
“
It is a decision we must get right, but also
one we must take quickly.
Discussion about big transport schemes
often invokes the opinions of businesses and
representative groups, including transport
organisations themselves. That is entirely
appropriate – businesses, for example, along
with their employees and customers, are
often immediate beneficiaries of investment.
But I want to retain a sharp focus on those
to whom I am ultimately accountable – the
everyday transport user. The commuter
catching his or her daily train to work; the
motorist who wants to avoid congestion; the
truck driver moving freight for a living; or the
retired person taking the bus to the high street
or to visit friends. My test for any transport
system will be whether it serves those people
effectively. And where I make changes, I will
always seek to act in their interest.
Of course, I am also conscious that new
transport projects can be controversial. It is
right that there is debate about where and
when new investment takes place. People
affected by development near their homes
deserve to be heard, and, if appropriate,
properly compensated.
But we must not imagine that decisions
about transport can be deferred forever, or
that the best location for new infrastructure
is always just over the horizon. The pressures
we face on our roads and railways, with traffic
and passengers at record levels and set to
increase still further, mean that action is
needed. The sooner we act, the sooner we
will reap the benefits.
So it is an exciting time to be starting my
new role in. My task is to build a transport
network fit for the twenty-first century – one
that supports a growing economy, a strong
society, and that delivers for transport
users. It is a task I will carry out with great
enthusiasm, ambition, and confidence in our
ability to get the job done.

politics first | Corridors
A railway system with its
passengers at its heart
Andy McDonald, Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and Labour
MP for Middlesbrough
Labour’s promise to bring the railways back into public
ownership is popular with the general public, with
poll after poll demonstrating that around two thirds
of the population support the idea. It is not difficult to
understand the high levels of public support for ending
the dysfunctional model of privatised rail.
56
Quite simply, the privatisation of British
Rail was a rushed, botched job which had
more to do with ideology than any clear plan
for the railways, and the consequences were,
quite literally, disastrous, resulting in a series
of fatal accidents.
The last Labour Government cleaned up
much of this mess at a cost of several billion
pounds and delivered the safest railway
in Europe. We also invested more in the
railways, in real terms, than any previous
Government and won back public trust in
the railways – the foundation on which
all subsequent investment has been built.
But many of the other problems caused
by privatisation remained and continue to
plague commuters and taxpayers, alike.
Millions of us rely on the railways to get
into work every morning, but, alongside
the continual ratchet upwards in fares, too
many privatised rail companies have failed
to deliver the service passengers demand.
Southern Rail, in recent months, has been
a particular disgrace, with both passengers
and workers suffering at the hands of its
incompetent management.
The network of private and foreign stateowned
companies which operate passenger
services on Britain’s railways come together
in a confused, inefficient and jumbled network
that drives up the cost of improvement works,
complicates ticketing structures and extracts
eye-watering profits that could, instead, go
on improvements or keeping fares down.
The hit to the pockets of commuters stands
in stark contrast to the £222 million in
dividends paid to shareholders of private
train companies in the last year – an increase
of 21 per cent.
Britain is already the most expensive
country in Europe to travel by train in, with
rail fares haven risen by 25 per cent in the
last six years alone. And rail fares are not
just expensive – they are confusing, too,
often leaving passengers overpaying for their
journey and struggling to claim refunds they
are entitled to. As the Government are finding
out, it is proving far too difficult to make
basic changes to fares and ticketing under
our fragmented system.
Bringing the railways back in house as the
franchises expire is a cost-effective means to
take our transport system out of the hands of
the privateers and back under proper public
control. And it is effective: the East Coast
Mainline, placed in state ownership after
private operator National Express walked
away from the contract, rapidly established
a reputation as the best of our rail service
operators, delivering over £1 billion to
the Treasury, keeping fares down, holding
record passenger satisfaction and engaged
the workforce with unparalleled success.
It is baffling that the Tories did not take the
opportunity to build on that success; instead,
they pushed East Coast back out to private
operator Virgin. The success of East Coast
Mainline demonstrates a clear alternative to
the dysfunctional model of privatisation and,
as with the ongoing Southern Rail debacle,
shows a government clinging to a failed
model for purely ideological reasons – and
it is commuters who are being made to pay
the price.
It is no surprise that the common sense
call to bring the railways back into public
ownership, as pledged by Jeremy Corbyn,
remains popular with the electorate. We know
that reliable, modern, affordable transport is
essential to delivering productivity growth.
Trimming the fat of privatisation can unlock
funds to deliver cheaper fares for passengers,
with the TUC showing that the costs saved
from bringing expiring franchises from 2016
to 2020 would save £604 million a year,
enough to lower regulated fares by up to
10 per cent. In addition, ticketing structures
could be more easily simplified and savings
achieved through greater integration.
Our trains should run for the benefit of
passengers and the taxpayer, rather than
private or foreign state-owned companies,
as is presently the case. Labour have been
clear that we will put an end to Britain’s
rip-off railways, bringing rail back to
public ownership, with routes returning
to public ownership as private contracts
expire, meaning profits can be re-invested
to improve services and hold fares down.
Passengers, not profit, should be at the heart
of Britain’s railway.

politics first | Corridors
The critical need to preserve
and strengthen UK ports
Louise Ellman, Chair of the Transport Select Committee and Labour
and Co-operative MP for Liverpool, Riverside
The UK’s 120 commercial ports are the principal
connection to international markets, facilitating 95 per
cent of trade, including 40 per cent of all our food and
25 per cent of all energy.
58
The UK ports industry is the second
largest in Europe, handling more than 500
million tonnes of freight, as well as over 60
million passenger journeys annually. It is
fundamental to economic growth, making a
direct contribution of £7.7 billion to GDP in
2013 and paying out £2 billion in taxes into
the exchequer. The ports industry is directly
made up of at least 6,600 businesses and
employs at least 118,000 people and
indirectly contributes to 344,000 jobs, equal
to 1 in every 94 jobs in the UK.
Annual investment in the industry
remains robust at £400 million a year and
its productivity continues to outperform the
rest of the UK economy, with ports industry
workers 1.3 times more productive than the
UK average.
While the ports industry is in a strong
position and has a long, illustrious history, it
would be remiss to ignore the challenges and
opportunities which confront the industry.
As almost half of the UK’s exports (45 per
cent) and imports (53 per cent) are with the
European Union, the recent referendum result
has generated considerable uncertainty,
particularly regarding our future trading
relationship with Europe and access to the
tariff-free common market.
It is vital to pursue continuing European
trade. With seaborne trade projected to
double by 2030, it is also important to
develop new trading relationships with other
major economies such as China and India.
The ports industry could provide the gateway.
Despite the vote to leave the EU, there
is continued uncertainty regarding the
controversial EU Port Service Regulation
which, by coincidence, was agreed to in
Brussels on the Monday following the
referendum result.
The UK Major Ports Group and the British
Ports Association had urged MEPs to reject
the European Commission’s Port Services
Regulation proposal. That was on the basis
that such regulation would prevent privatelyfinanced
ports operating as fully commercial
businesses, particularly with respect to the
ability to set their own port charges.
The long-term application of that
regulation in the UK will depend on the future
relationship negotiated with the EU and, at
this stage, it is impossible to predict how it
will unfold.
In any case, the provision of sufficient sea
port capacity will be an essential element in
ensuring trade and subsequent growth in the
UK economy. Given that 75 per cent of the UK
ports are privately-owned, much of this will
be facilitated through private investment, as
was the case at Felixstowe and Southampton.
There is a clear link between the strength
of the local and strategic transport network
and the ability of ports to prosper. The
Government has a role in facilitating port
development and associated transport
infrastructure to enable goods to reach their
final destination speedily. It is vital that
that the regional aspects are recognised.
Liverpool 2, Peel Ports’ new deep water port,
is ready to bring major vessels from the Far
East to the North of England - this has the
potential to transform the northern economy.
The Northern Freight and Logistics Strategy
should facilitate that.
The National Policy Statement for
Ports, developed in 2012, improved the
planning process for port developments.
The newly formed National Infrastructure
Commission will, hopefully, also create new
opportunities, by improving links to rail and
road infrastructure. It remains to be seen how
effective those developments will be.
It is, however, sobering to look at the
scale of recent investment in UK motorway
networks, particularly when compared
with France and Germany. The number of
motorway miles constructed since 2000 in
France and Germany is 850 and 680 miles,
respectively. The figure for the UK is 46
miles.
There is immense potential in the UK ports
industry, not only to consolidate its position
as a powerhouse but to grow even further
as new trade opportunities emerge. For that
potential to be harnessed, it is critical that the
Government supports the maritime sector,
working with the industry.

politics first | Corridors
Turning healthcare systems
into learning organisations
Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health and Conservative MP
for South West Surrey
Every year, an estimated one million patients die in
hospitals across the world because of avoidable clinical
mistakes. It is difficult to confirm the exact number
because of the variability in reporting standards but, if
it is of this scale, avoidable clinical mistakes sit along
hypertensive heart disease and road deaths as one of
the top causes of death in the world today.
60
In the United States, they estimate it at
up to 100,000 preventable deaths annually
and, in England, the Hogan, Darzi and Black
analysis says that 3.6 per cent of hospital
deaths have a 50 per cent or more chance
of being avoidable – that is 150 avoidable
deaths every week. Holland and New Zealand
make similar estimates.
In 1990, a bright 24-year-old medical
school graduate started his first job in
medicine. He was a pre-reg house officer
looking forward to a glowing career in
surgery. In his first month, he was attending
to a 16-year-old boy undergoing palliative
chemotherapy. The boy needed two injections,
one intravenously and one by lumbar puncture
into the spine. The intravenous drug was
highly toxic – indeed, fatal – if administered to
the spine. But it arrived on the ward in a nearly
identical syringe to the other injection. Both
syringes were handed to the young doctor for
the lumbar puncture procedure and both were
injected into the patient’s spine. As soon as
the doctor realised what had happened, frantic
efforts were made to flush out the toxic drug
but to no avail and, tragically, the patient died
a week later. So what happened next?
You might think the most important priority
would be to learn from what went wrong and
make sure the mistake was never repeated.
But, instead, the doctor was prosecuted
and convicted for manslaughter. He and a
colleague were given suspended jail terms.
The convictions were, eventually, overturned
at the Court of Appeal. But the real crime
was missed; as the legal process rumbled
on, exactly the same error was made in
another NHS hospital and another patient died
because our system was more interested in
blaming than learning.
The blame culture does not just create fear
for doctors. It causes heartbreak for patients
and their families, as I discovered when I met
the parents of three-year-old Jonnie Meek who
tragically died unexpectedly in hospital in
2014. His parents found their grief at losing
Jonnie compounded by the immense difficulty
in establishing what exactly happened. But it
should not need an inquest to find out the
truth. Instead, we need to ask what is blocking
the development of the supportive, learning,
culture we need to make our hospitals as safe
as they should be.
In England, we have made much progress
in improving our safety culture following
the Francis Report into the tragedy of Mid
Staffs. According to the Heath Foundation,
the proportion of patients being harmed
in the NHS has dropped by over one-third
(34 per cent) in the last three years. MRSA
bloodstream infections have fallen by over half
in the last five years. The law has changed,
placing on all hospital trusts a statutory duty
of candour to patients and their families when
things go wrong. The government was elected
on a firm commitment to make NHS care
safer across all seven days of the week and
we are making good progress. But if we are to
complete this journey we have to change from
a blame culture to a learning culture.
Matthew Syed, in his book Black Box
Thinking, explains how that same blame
culture used to exist in the airline industry.
He tells the tragic story of United Airlines
flight 173, where 10 people died in a crash in
December 1978. The pilot, Captain Malburn
McBroom, was trying to rectify a potentially
dangerous problem with the landing gear but
failed to notice that the plane was dangerously
low on fuel. When he was forced to crash land,
he did so with extraordinary skill, saving the
lives of 150 passengers. But because of his
mistake - not noticing the low fuel levels - he
got tied up in a seven year long court case,
came close to suicide, lost his pilot’s licence
and, ultimately, died a broken man.
But that tragedy had a surprisingly positive
ending. Because it was the moment the airline
industry realised that, if it was going to reduce
airline fatalities, it needed to change its culture.
They realised that ‘human factors’, rather than
technical or equipment failure, had been at the
heart of the problem. Anyone could have failed to
notice low fuel levels when they were trying to fix
the landing gear. Why did not other crew members
spot the problem and speak out? The issue was
not that particular person, but what could have
happened to any person in the same situation.
As a result, airlines transformed their training
programmes. They mandated reforms that required
pilots to attend group sessions with engineers
and attendants to discuss communication,
teamwork and workload management. Captains
were required to encourage feedback, and crew
members to speak up boldly.

politics first | Corridors
ADVERTORIAL
Turning healthcare systems
into learning organisations
Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health and Conservative MP
for South West Surrey
62
And the result? There were dramatic – and
immediate – reductions in the number of
airline fatalities. The number of deaths overall
halved over 30 years – at the same time as
air travel increased nine fold. Ten people died
in the United 173 crash, but the learning that
resulted afterwards has saved thousands more.
Now healthcare is, of course, very different
to aviation. When someone dies in an airline
accident you know there has been a mistake,
whereas with over 1,000 deaths every year in
the average hospital it is not always clear. And,
while modern planes are highly complex, they
are nowhere near as complex as the human
body. But the airline industry changed its
culture. And so can we.
The first step is intelligent transparency. We
need to understand the scale of the problem,
not just nationally, but where we actually
work. The NHS in England will now publish
estimates by every hospital trust of their own
annual number of avoidable deaths.
The second stage is to use intelligent
transparency to turn the NHS into what I
have long wanted it to be: the world’s largest
learning organisation. There is a huge amount
of learning that goes on every day in our NHS,
and the government has played its part by
introducing the new CQC inspection regime;
legislating for the statutory duty of candour;
making progress – not always smoothly –
towards a seven day NHS; and we have asked
every trust to appoint an independent person
so clinicians can relay concerns to someone
other than their line manager. But, if we are
really to tackle potentially avoidable deaths,
we need a culture change from the inside as
well as exhortation from the outside. A true
learning culture has to come from the heart.
And that means a fundamental rethink of our
concept of accountability.
Time and time again, when I responded on
behalf of the government to tragedies at Mid
Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Winterbourne View,
Southern Health, and other places, I heard
relatives who had cried out in frustration that
no one had been “held accountable”. The rush
to blame may look decisive but by pinning the
blame on individuals, we sometimes duck the
bigger challenge of identifying the problems
which often lurk in complex systems and are
often the true cause of avoidable harm.
Organisational leadership is vital if we are
to change that – and we can see world-class
organisations, inside and outside healthcare,
have a very different approach. That is why
we need a new mindset to permeate the
ethos of the NHS, where blame is never the
default option. Justice must never be denied
if a professional is malevolent or grossly
negligent. But the driving force must be the
desire to improve care and reduce harm –
fired by an insatiable curiosity to pursue
improvement in every sphere of activity. That
is what I mean by the world’s largest learning
organisation.
NHS England is working with the Royal
College of Physicians to roll out a standardised
method for reviewing the records of patients
who have died in hospital. The objective is
to make it unnecessary for anyone ever to
feel they have to ‘blow the whistle’ on poor
care. But, as we make that transition, it is vital
that we offer whistleblowers protection so
if we discover there are any gaps in the law
protecting them, we will act to close them.
Karl Popper said that true ignorance is not
the absence of knowledge but the refusal to
acquire it. Now is the time to use the power of
intelligent transparency to make sure we really
do turn our healthcare systems into learning
organisations – and offer our patients the safe,
high quality they deserve.

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Labour will put the “N” back
into the NHS
The Liberal Democrats have always
had the community at their roots
Diane Abbott, Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Labour MP
for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
With every passing month, the NHS hits new record
lows. New figures show ambulance response targets
have been missed for 13 months in a row, while A&E
waiting times have been missed for 11 months in a
row. Further to that, junior doctors are striking, lifesaving
drugs are being rationed, and dozens of Trusts
and Clinical Commissioning Groups are closing down or
being placed in special measures.
Baroness Kath Pinnock, a Liberal Democrat Peer
Liberal Democrats are optimistic, by nature. We want
to help make the world, or at least our bit of it, a better
place. The strapline of many a Liberal Democrat leaflet
is: “Making a Difference” or “Getting Things Done”.
The British health system is failing at
almost every level and the reasons are
primarily down to money.
Since 2010, the Tories have increased
the NHS budget by under 1 per cent in
real terms each year, while demand has
grown 3.5-4 per cent each year because
our population is aging – by 2020, the
number of over 85s will have doubled.
Caring for those often complex cases is
not cheap.
Worse still, the government has cut
local authorities’ social care budgets
by a third (£4.6 billion) since 2011 so
abandoned patients end up in our already
stretched A&Es, whose staff have been
forced to become carers and social
workers to pick up the slack.
That pressure also has an emotional
cost. Morale is at rock bottom. A report
into North Middlesex hospital found that
doctors regularly wept at the end of their
shifts due to the added toil of their work.
But there is nothing accidental about
the crisis. It has been engineered by the
government to create shocks to the public
health system, which the government
‘resolves’ by privatising the provision of
care. It is what Naomi Klein refers to as
the “shock doctrine”: the crisis is used to
implement neoliberal economic policies
such as privatization, deregulation and
cuts to social services.
Hence we have seen the Health and Social
Care Act (2012) allowing Trusts to tender
out half of their work to the private sector;
we have seen the replacement of nurses
bursaries with loans; and we have seen cuts,
cuts, cuts everywhere, from public health to
social care to district nursing.
In a recent paper on the introduction
of private sector provision in elective hip
surgeries in Scotland – the first study
of its kind – researchers at Queen Mary
University discovered that privatisation
“was associated with a decrease in public
provision and may have contributed to
an increase in age and socio-economic
inequalities in treatment rates.”
That is because private providers cherry
pick the cheap and easy patients and leave
the more challenging and expensive patients,
who are more likely to be old and lowincome,
to compete for the shrinking public
part of the NHS.
The private providers are also often not a
fan of paying tax, which deprives the public
purse of money to pay for more doctors and
more nurses. Take, for example, the General
Healthcare Group, which owns 70 hospitals
nationwide and is the biggest provider of
acute care in the NHS. GHG has established
complex international corporate structures to
shift profits it makes on its hospitals – which
care for thousands of state-funded patients
each year - to cut its bottom line and avoid tax
(it has not paid any tax in the UK for five years).
That is common among the large private
health providers to the NHS. Spire Healthcare,
BPL, Circle Health, Care UK, Ramsay Health
and Virgin similarly use tax havens to avoid
paying UK tax.
We need to face up to those problems
with radical action.
Labour will renationalise the NHS with a
new National Health Service Bill to roll back
20 years of privatisation and marketisation
started by the Tories and wrongly continued
under New Labour.
The bill will designate the NHS as a
non-economic service of general interest
and exclude it from European Union treaties
and the World Trade Organisation General
Agreement on Trade in Services, so it can be
on a non-commercial basis and purely in the
public interest, not for profit.
That will save money, improve care and
shift control for the nation’s health away from
corporations and towards elected officials.
We should care for our own sick. Leaving
it to the private sector, in effect, prioritises
the shareholder’s corporations over taxpayers
and patients.
Labour will stop the madness by putting
the “N” back into the NHS.
We aspire to making a practical and positive
difference to the lives of the people in our
communities. It is the importance we place on
communities that sets us apart.
Communities built around a shared interest
or an attachment to a place, large or small, all
matter to Liberal Democrats because vibrant
communities have people who, respecting
differences, work together to create a better
quality of life.
So what does that mean in practice?
For Liberal Democrats seeking, and then
listening and respecting, the disparate views in
our communities is vital. It enables everyone to
have their say. Carried out effectively, it allows
the “quiet” voices and the “hard to reach” to be
heard. It gives a conduit for everyone, whatever
their background, to feel part of the community
and thus to help shape it.
On top of that, we have a fundamental
conviction that no-one shall be enslaved by
poverty, ignorance or conformity, and this sits
at the top of our constitution and runs through
much of what we do.
With those values comes determination
to help right the ills in our communities, the
issues that affect the vast majority of people
in this country. Lack of affordable and good
quality housing; a good school that helps their
child reach their potential; affordable child care
(including during school holidays); being able
to pay the bills; an NHS that is not constantly at
breaking point; and decent care for older people.
Over-crowded and poor quality housing
depresses opportunity and increases the
likelihood of ill health and low income for
families. Liberal Democrats have, therefore,
prioritised housing, fighting to ensure there is
sufficient housing of the right quality and at a
price that people can afford. It is not just about
building more houses, though this is important,
but making sure that what is built meets needs.
That has to include homes provided by Housing
Associations or Local Authorities for rent
which, sadly, has been an anathema to recent
Governments.
We have always talked as a party about
education as a great provider of opportunity
in society and we must start providing early
help where needed for pre-school children.
Liberal Democrats made a start with providing
free child care for the two year olds from the
most impoverished families. More needs to
be achieved through early intervention by
professionals from across disciplines, working
closely together so no child is disadvantaged
from the outset of their school career.
Parents want a good school for their
children. The response from Government has
been an obsession with school structures and
governance. Those changes have done little to
advance the raising of skills and narrowing of
the gap. And that is why the Liberal Democrats’
Pupil Premium, providing more money to more
disadvantaged schools, is so vital. The regular
tinkering with, and narrowing of, the curriculum,
combined with an over emphasis on testing,
does not enable all children to prosper in
school. What does work is ambitious leadership
and inspirational teaching. Liberal Democrats
will put their effort and attention into developing
both of those.
Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords won
a commitment in the recent Child Care Act for
flexible child care as part of the further free 20
hours per week for three and four year olds. If
the Government stands by that commitment,
it will include the ability to take up some of
those hours during school holidays. That is real
practical help for parents.
For young and old, alike, the value of the NHS
cannot be underestimated. Adequately funding
the NHS by raising the proportion of GDP spent,
to bring it closer to that of other developed
countries, will be a start. Liberal Democrats will
continue to make the case for parity of provision
for mental illness.
So much of that ties into where the decisions
are made. The recent referendum demonstrated
how remote many communities feel from the
decision-making that impacts on their lives. The
Liberal Democrat answer is to return genuine
powers and responsibilities to a reformed local
government, enabling individuals and their
communities to shape the place where they live,
in a way which suits their needs and aspirations.
64
65

politics first | Corridors
A definite and imperative need
for a Right to Build housing policy
Grahame Morris, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government and Labour MP for Easington
I want to build a consensus on housing. Whilst details
between the parties will inevitably differ, the simple
starting point, for us all, should be to build more homes
and acknowledge that there has been a collective failure
by successive governments.
66
The previous Labour Government failed to
reverse the trend which started in the 1980s
with the utter collapse in building new council
housing. The Right to Buy could have been
an opportunity to unleash a home owning
democracy, as well as creating revenues to
build a new generation of council housing. It
is worth remembering that the Labour Party’s
1959 general election manifesto contained a
commitment to introduce a right to buy.
However, when Margaret Thatcher’s
Government introduced that, two decades later,
the receipts from right to buy sales were snaffled
up by the treasury, while Tory government
financial restrictions stopped local councils
using the revenues from council houses sales
to replenish local housing stock. That pincer
movement meant that the housing stock sold
off was not replaced because councils were
effectively forced out of house building.
The epitaph for Right to Buy is that the
number of homeowners is at a thirty year low,
and the “Generation Rent” seem indefinitely
locked out of home ownership. The public
purse is also counting the cost with increased
spending on housing benefit being used to
subsidise high rents and provide inflated profit
margins for private landlords.
The Coalition/Conservative Government’s
interventions, to date, have done nothing to
address the supply issues within the housing
market. The various government schemes,
such as starter homes, help to buy and shared
ownership, have done little to expand home
ownership. In many cases, they have simply
assisted those already well-placed to get
a foot on the housing ladder. Meanwhile,
people on low and middle incomes remain
locked out, trapped in expensive private rented
accommodation or, increasingly, living at home
with their parents into their thirties.
The current situation is unsustainable, and
for those who oppose any regulation of rents in
the private sector, the only solution is to build
our way out of the crisis.
But while we have heard a lot of talk about
tackling the housing crisis, housing policy over
the last six years can best be characterised
as six years of failure.
So, the Government must now turn to
a trusted and willing partner to address the
housing crisis, and put four decades of failing
housing policy behind them.
Local authorities have a historic role in
house building, and up until the late 1970s
they were delivering in excess of 100,000 new
homes a year.
Local Government is uniquely placed to
address the housing crisis, thanks to its local
knowledge and expertise of specific housing
circumstances. That provides an insight which
is simply not available in Whitehall.
We need to give Local Authorities the “Right
to Build” a new generation of council housing.
The Local Government Association has
called for councils to be allowed to borrow
to invest in housing, to earmark receipts from
homes sold under the Right to Buy to build
new homes.
We cannot delay; there has never been a
better time to borrow at historically low rates.
New house building will create a virtuous circle,
delivering new homes, jobs, and economic
stimulus. Such an investment would also boost
a construction industry caught in the grips
of uncertainty following the European Union
referendum.
The figures are already widely known;
every £1 spent on construction generates an
additional £2.09 in economic output; for every
£1 spent in building, 92 pence stays in the UK;
and for every £1 spent by the public sector, 56
pence returns to the Exchequer, of which 36
pence is direct savings in tax and benefits.
Labour’s pledge to invest £500 billion in
Britain, through regional investment banks,
has housing as a key priority and will ensure
councils get the low cost finance to build the
housing their communities need.
We need a Government which recognises
the importance of housing. It should be viewed
as an essential part of our national infrastructure,
as well as an opportunity to improve living
standards and extend opportunity. In short,
investment in housing is one that will pay
numerous dividends.
We therefore cannot afford the status quo to
prevail. I am convinced that now is the time
to build the homes that will give “Generation
Rent” the opportunities for homeownership that
were available to their parents.

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Bringing compassion
to animal farming
Undemocratic, unaccountable
and out of touch: the reality of
the House of Lords
Sir David Amess, Conservative MP for Southend West
Ronnie Cowan, Scottish National Party MP for Inverclyde
Since first being elected to Parliament in 1983, I have
always taken a very close interest in animal welfare
matters. That is borne out of my own personal love of
animals, going back to my childhood. Over the years, I
have been involved in many campaigns to improve the
welfare of animals.
Parliament should reflect the society that it wishes to
create. However, the House of Lords does not reflect a
society that I wish to be part of.
So it goes without saying that I am a strong
supporter of compassion in animal farming.
I am not silly about the issue; I appreciate
that not that many of us are vegetarians and
that the majority of the population eat meat.
However, I also strongly believe that the mark
of any civilization is how we treat animals. This
country, by and large, has a first-class record in
animal welfare.
Only this year, the Conservative Party has set
up the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation,
with the objective of raising awareness of the
lives of literally billions of animals reared on
intensive farms around the world and how
this impacts on animal welfare and impacts
on the environment and peoples’ health. The
organisation highlights how people can help
to advance animal welfare. The Conservative
Party manifesto actually promised to uphold the
highest standards of farm animal welfare.
Each year, about 70 billion animals are
farmed for milk, eggs and meat worldwide,
with about 25,000 slaughtered every minute.
There is great variety in the conditions under which
the animals are raised. Whilst standards in the UK
are high, elsewhere they are often lower, leading
to significant unnecessary pain and suffering
for millions of animals. The media will report
on those stories when they uncover something
that is particularly gruesome. In February 2015,
the government’s five year progress report on
international animal welfare was published. It is
important that our country shares the knowledge
of best husbandry and veterinary practice
internationally to raise standards.
The stalls which keep sows caged, so
they cannot move during their pregnancy,
were banned for cruelty reasons in the UK
in 1999 but, today, six EU countries are still
non-compliant. Consumers’ growing interest
in how animals are treated on farms and in
livestock facilities has created a strong demand
for further information, so the public are rightly
concerned about the rise in factory farms where
animals are crammed together, where sow pigs
are locked into farrowing crates, where cows
never see the sun and chickens are crippled
with no room to move in cages.
All farm animals used for food should be
treated with respect. Farm animals in intensive
farms are crammed together in sheds and
are de-beaked, castrated, tails docked, dehorned
and have their teeth clipped, artificially
inseminated and their mating is controlled.
The animals not only endure those painful
procedures but also suffer from fear and stress.
Intensively reared farm animals are controlled in
every aspect and denied their natural behaviour
to form bonds with their young and each other.
They have little space to move around and never
smell fresh air or feel a blade of grass beneath
their feet.
Whilst there is some improvement in
animal welfare, we could be doing so much
more to eliminate cruelty to animals. Livestock
production, fuelled by factory farming, is
responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions
than all the worlds’ trains, airplanes and cars
put together, yet there has been little focus on
these astonishing facts. Industrial livestock
production generally uses and pollutes more
ground and surface water than grazing or mixed
systems.
Veal crates were banned in the UK in
1990 and today the practice is outlawed in
all countries in the EU. Many MPs are calling
for CCTV to be installed in slaughterhouses
to ensure that proper procedures are carried
out to reduce the suffering of farm animals.
Other MPs are calling for an end to the longterm
distance live transportation of animals
and the overuse of antibiotics in livestock, yet
progress is frustratingly slow, for instance with
the implementation of legislation to ban beak
trimming of commercial hens being constantly
postponed.
We consumers have the power in our hands
to make a real contribution to the quality of life
of farm animals. Animal welfare should be at the
core of our food choice; we can decide not to
purchase factory farmed meat, milk, poultry and
eggs and, in contrast, buy products from farms
with high welfare conditions, where animals are
reared cage free and cows graze on pastures. So
let us seize this opportunity that we now have
following the country’s decision to leave the EU
and source our food from countries which treat
their farm animals with respect.
For information on the Conservative Animal
Welfare Foundation, visit:
www.conservativeanimalwelfarefoundation.org/
Unelected, bloated and out of touch, the
House of Lords is only surpassed in size
by China’s National People’s Congress, a
legislature that represents over 1.3 billion
people.
The Lords should, in practise, work in
tandem with the House of Commons to make
laws for the benefit of the people.
Yet for many, the House of Lords has
simply become a political retirement home
for politicians rejected at the ballot box, party
appointees, unelected bishops and fourth
generation offspring of long forgotten land
owning aristocracy.
There is no doubt that there are capable,
compassionate people who do make it to the
House of Lords. People who care, can help to
govern and, indeed, would be chosen if the
upper chamber was fully elected. However,
those people only end up in the Lords by
accident, rather than design, and without a
mandate from the people.
I want to see a modern parliament that
is fit for purpose and works as a functional
centre of governance. Some might argue
that the House of Lords already fulfils its
role of holding the Government to account.
Unfortunately, all I see is centuries of
accumulated privilege and unaccountability.
I can accept that while other parliamentary
systems may work more effectively, no
system is perfect. If there is a problem
within our political structure, it should have
the opportunity to reform and to meet the
demands of a modern society.
Yet over a century after the process of
Lords reform was initiated, we are still waiting
for any kind of meaningful rehabilitation of
our upper house. Too much of that reform
process has related only to the relationship
between the Lords and Commons, rather than
a more fundamental debate about why we
even have an unelected chamber.
In the recent European Union referendum
campaign, Brexit was predicated on a belief
that we are being represented by unelected
and unaccountable European politicians.
Those same Brexiteers are strangely
inconspicuous about a lack of democracy
closer to home.
They are welcome to join the debate at
any time, and it is not beyond the realms of
possibility that, together, we can all think of
a more effective way for our upper house to
operate.
I want to see a second chamber that
is elected - not allocated on the basis of
political favour - and a chamber that is
accountable for the behaviour of its members.
Our second chamber should also be secular
and not allocate privilege and entitlement
to a particular religious denomination, as it
does now.
More importantly, women remain
significantly underrepresented in our
parliament, despite the record high number
that are now sitting in both chambers. An
increased number of women in parliament
will bring a welcome challenge to the existing
parliamentary rules and a reformed upper
house could benefit from more convenient
working hours and the development of a less
combative debating culture.
The SNP has a long standing view that the
House of Lords, in its current format of being
unelected, should be abolished and replaced
with an elected second chamber. In our age
of political cynicism, I am also proud that my
party continues to maintain its longstanding
principle of refusing to sit in the House of
Lords.
As long as Scotland is part of the UK, I will
use my parliamentary voice to argue in favour
of reform. Sadly, over a century of failure tells
us that substantial reform of the Lords will
probably never happen.
If we cannot secure reforms, then the
House of Lords will continue to be as
practical as using a horse and cart to travel
down a motorway.
Only once we have a parliament that
reflects our society can we truly be proud of
our parliamentary democracy. If Westminster
is incapable of that change, then Scotland
must look to its own parliament for the
answers.
68
69

politics first | Corridors
ADVERTORIAL
Commemorating the Great War’s
centenaries and achieving a lasting
legacy for them
Dr Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire
If the root cause of war is political division, the anniversary
of its battles too often picks at the sore. Think of the
Battle of the Boyne in 1690 at one end of Europe and
the Battle of the Field of Blackbirds in 1389 at the other.
We are now at the mid-point of the centenary of the first
of the two most terrible wars our continent has ever
known. What has it achieved?
70
On 1 July, between the UK’s referendum
on 23 June and the change in Prime Minister
on 13 July, Britain came together to mark the
first day of the Somme, the bloodiest battle
in our military history. Not only did it provide
a unifying respite domestically, it was also
an opportunity for Europe’s political leaders
to stand shoulder to shoulder at a fractious
time. The first duty of those gathered in the
rain beneath Lutyen’s towering memorial to
the missing at Thiepval, on 1 July, was to
remember the dead but it would have been
remarkable had they not been reflecting, too,
on the latest twist in European history that had
just been delivered by the descendants of
those memorialised.
The centenaries of the battles which
make up the Great War observed by the UK
in its national programme so far – Gallipoli,
Jutland, the Somme – have reunited allies
and belligerents in the commemoration
of shared history. That is not to erase
convictions about national right and wrong in
a misguided exercise in political correctness
but acknowledging the failings in our
common human state that lead to conflict.
The experience has been wholly positive.
History has also been bringing people
together in unexpected places. So, for
example, the Somme, previously very much
an exclusive part of the Unionist tradition in
Northern Ireland, has been shared, reflecting
the very large number of young men etched
in sandstone whose ancestors are part of the
nationalist community.
A Somme that saw the Ulstermen’s heroic
storming of the Schwaben redoubt also
saw the 16th (Irish) division’s Guillemont
and Ginchy. The historical reality is that a
hundred years ago the Somme touched
everyone in this archipelago from Lerwick
to Londonderry, Limerick and Land’s End.
Commemoration of shared history, even
where complex and nuanced, has the power
to unite. The key is to observe history
respectfully and without varnish and, finally,
to refuse to be bound by it.
A minority view is that we should not, in
any event, be raking up the past and certainly
not using significant helpings of public money
to do so. After all, what does remembrance
mean given that none of us now can
remember anyone who fell during the Great
War? For me, remembrance really means
reflecting on loss and missed opportunity.
That makes it eternal. Society is the poorer for
the fallen not having enriched the last century
through the arts, science, medicine, business
and even politics. That loss, of course, has
been equally felt on both sides of the Great
War’s great divide and its impact has been
worldwide, regardless of national borders.
The historian A.J.P. Taylor famously
observed that idealism perished on the
Somme. I do not agree. The Somme is,
indeed, etched into the national psyche like
no other battle before or since because it
was the ultimate human mincing machine.
But if Taylor was right and idealism went
with the million plus that died in the 141
days of the Somme offensive, why, 100
years on, do we engage with undiminished
fervour in remembrance, reflection and the
contemplation of the Great War’s sheer,
bloody awfulness? The fact that we do, and
that this year’s key commemorations of the
centenaries of the battles of Jutland and the
Somme were accessed by so many people,
suggest that the idealism that Taylor spoke of
is still very much alive.
It seems to me that as Europe enters a
period of opportunity and risk unprecedented
in our lifetimes, the commemoration of
shared history in the form of this most terrible
chapter for our continent is, in its small way,
inculcating the ideals of unity and common
ground between and among people.
Now, would that not be a great legacy
for the Great War’s centenaries and a fitting
tribute to its dead?
Dr Andrew Murrison served as David
Cameron’s Special Representative for the
Centenary of the Great War

politics first | Corridors
ADVERTORIAL
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Allowing young people to
reach their potential
Paula Sherriff, Labour MP for Dewsbury
It is around this time of year when many young people
are looking to consider their next steps, whether that
be in education or employment. However, particularly
for young women, there remains a cloud of uncertainty
around apprenticeships as an alternative to A levels or
university.
Tom Firth, Higher
Apprentice at
Silentnight, is presented
with a certificate for the
‘Young Professionals
Industry Experience’
by Ben Burbidge,
Master of The Furniture
Makers’ Company.
There are a number of obstacles which deter
young people from considering apprenticeships
as a career option. So what can be done to make
sure that apprenticeships offer the life-changing
opportunities that they should do?
Labour has long argued the need for
more high quality apprenticeships. The last
Labour Government set up the National
Apprenticeship Service and introduced National
Apprenticeship Week in 2008, alongside
reviving apprenticeships from 65,000 starts in
1996/7 to 279,700 by 2009/10.
So it is deeply worrying to see the sheer
scale of uncertainty and unease among
employers about the Tory Government’s
apprenticeship levy. That is the Government’s
proposal for large employers with a wage bill
of over £3 million, to pay payroll tax of 0.5 per
cent which would pay for investment in training
apprentices.
While the principle of the policy is sound,
the Government must do more to work with
employers to resolve their concerns, and
ensure that the system meets the needs of all
parties. Only by providing further clarity and
greater flexibility will the aim of creating more
high-quality apprenticeships be met.
Information provided about apprenticeships
must be better, especially for young women.
According to the CBI, 93 per cent of young
people are not getting the careers information
they need, and what advice they do receive
tends to “pigeon-hole” girls.
A UK-wide survey carried out by The Student
Room recently asked 10,000 students finishing
their A levels about their education and
employment options. Shockingly, some 40 per
cent of respondents thought apprenticeships
are aimed at men, whereas only one percent
thought the training is designed for women.
Moreover, only 11 per cent felt “fully informed”
about apprenticeships as a training and career
option, while 40 per cent said they had received
“very little” or “no information” about taking on
an apprenticeship.
To redress that shortfall, Labour is calling for
compulsory face-to-face careers advice from
11, to challenge misconceptions and to work
in partnership with business. There is a need to
highlight how apprenticeships differ from other
routes into employment and to encourage girls
to consider high-quality apprenticeships in
science and engineering.
But it is not just careers advice and
the information available. Disappointingly,
occupational segregation in apprenticeships
has not improved. The increase in female
participation in apprenticeships has been
primarily driven by new apprenticeships being
created in sectors with a large female workforce
such as retail and business admin, rather than
an influx of young women into traditionally better
paid and male-dominated apprenticeships such
as engineering.
Earlier this year, the Young Women’s Trust
published a report which showed that female
apprentices are missing out at every stage
of apprenticeships and will continue to do so
unless urgent action is taken by employers and
Government.
Although official government figures
indicate apprenticeships are equally popular
amongst men and women, the report found
women were more likely to achieve poorer
outcomes than their male peers.
The apprenticeship gender pay gap currently
stands at 21 per cent - female apprentices are
paid on average 21 per cent less than their
male counterparts, making women on average
£2,000 worse off a year. In addition to that,
young women apprentices report receiving
less training than men – 23 per cent of women
reported receiving no training compared to 12
per cent of men.
Young women apprentices receive less
pay, less training and fewer job opportunities
compared to their male peers. For the UK to be
able to meet the demand for skilled workers in
sectors where there is a serious shortage, the
Government needs to improve apprenticeships
for young women. Action needs to be taken,
including ensuring that flexible and part-time
apprenticeships are available and that high
quality careers advice is offered to young
women.
All young people deserve fair opportunities
to access the best possible long-term
prospects.
Developing the Furniture Industry’s Future Leaders
through the Silentnight Apprenticeship Scheme
As the most recognised and trusted bed brand in the UK, investing in our people is of vital importance to Silentnight. As such, our
Apprenticeship Scheme is just one aspect of a full suite of management, leadership and core skills training programmes.
Our Apprentices can be found throughout the business, in a variety of different roles from Production Operatives through to
trainee management roles. We’re extremely proud of all of our Apprentices and their achievements, and many Apprentices who
have graduated from the scheme have already gone on to fill critical roles within the business, giving them excellent progression
opportunities whilst ensuring succession.
Recently, one of our Higher Apprentices, Tom Firth, successfully gained a place on the prestigious Furniture Makers’ Company
‘Young Professional Industry Experience’, which saw him visit a series of companies within the furniture industry, along with five
other young professionals also building their careers within the industry. This was an exciting development opportunity for Tom,
allowing him to extend his experience of the furniture industry by learning about raw materials and components, the complexity of
manufacturing, buying criteria, pricing, marketing and merchandising, through to consumer law, after sales and customer service.
The three week Industry Experience culminated in an event at the Furniture Makers’ Hall in London, where the six young professionals
gave a group presentation on the key concepts that they had learned and the challenges facing the furniture industry.
One of the key messages from the young professionals involved in the Industry Experience was the need to overcome skills
shortages within the furniture industry. It is our firm belief that this is where the employer led Trailblazer Apprenticeship Standards
truly come into their own, by giving employers the opportunity to be at the leading edge of skills development, ensuring that the
new standards are fit for purpose and provide Apprentices with the training that they need in the areas that are of vital importance to
the organisation. For Silentnight Apprentices trained as multi-skilled Production Operatives in our labour intensive manufacturing
environment, it is even more vital that the training reflects the needs of the business. Ensuring that our Apprentices are developing
appropriate skills is key to the success of our Apprenticeship Scheme.
Moving forward, Tom’s future is looking bright as he enters the final year of his HNC in Furniture Design & Make, and embarks
upon a two year development programme to enhance his leadership and management skills and his wider commercial awareness.
Behind him, the next cohort of Silentnight Apprentices are just beginning their journeys, and will be putting the new Trailblazer
Furniture Industry Standards firmly to the test.
Dr Julie Dix, People Development & Training Co-ordinator, Silentnight julie.dix@silentnight.co.uk www.silentnight.co.uk/apprenticeships
72
73

politics first | Corridors
ADVERTORIAL
With chaos at DEFRA, Labour
is on the side of rural Britain
THE UK PLASTICS INDUSTRY - KEEPING
THE UK A KEY GLOBAL PLAYER
74
Rachael Maskell, Shadow Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs and Labour MP for York Central
Whilst not perfect, our food delivery and
the balance of regulations which enabled
us to trade have been thrown into a state of
uncertainty because of the EU Referendum
vote. The Government’s agreement to
provide subsidy funding until 2020 is a
temporary measure, but 2020 will soon be
here - and without the Government preparing
any alternative. Those working across our
food industries have serious concerns about
the future.
The Government has been totally
irresponsible in the way it approached the
referendum. Before playing roulette with the
nation’s future, it should have scrutinised
what our relationship with our friends and
neighbours amounted to. Importantly, it
should have undertaken a detailed analysis
of the regulations, and determined whether
we had capability and capacity to deliver
our own equivalent regulations with effective
enforcement mechanisms, or if it would have
been better to buy equivalent packages from
the EU.
Cuts to DEFRA’s budgets, more than
any other Government department, at a
staggering 57 per cent, mean resources have
already been cut to the bone. Worse still, no
one knows where the required skills needed
will actually come from. According to reports,
there are only 20 people in Whitehall with
experience of negotiating trade deals, and the
Government is already spending extortionate
sums on consultants and lawyers to help
them through the minefield.
For over 40 years, the European Union has been central
to our food, farming, fishing and environmental policies.
The UK has had a strong hand in determining how we
allow our natural habitats to thrive, while the practical
business of moving food from the ‘plough to the plate’
has been supported by common policies to assist
production and trade.
My question to the Government is: “where
is the plan?” This July, the Government
cancelled the launch of its long awaited
25 year plans for Farming and the Natural
Environment, and the new Secretary of State
is already looking to others to tell her what
is needed.
Chaos is no strategy for delivering our
food security and ensuring that farmers can
operate their businesses. In my discussions
with the farming community, many are
seriously concerned about the impact of the
loss of migrant labour from the EU, putting
the sector at risk. Migrant labour plays a
major role in the horticultural and production
industries, and it is important that security is
provided for those working in the sector.
There is a need to remain competitive in
trading. Our goods will not be marketable if
they do not meet EU standards. We need to
identify where the improvements will come
from and build on 40 years of trading with
the EU and develop a framework to ensure
we have the right systems in place, including
financial drivers, to ensure that business
can continue. The big debates have focused
on the distribution of subsidies and fishing
quotas, a matter previously determined by
the Government. The Government must listen
to those communities and get this right.
My concern for the natural environment is
well recorded. We have serious issues with
air pollution, a need to drive biodiversity
and fears about our water systems if the
Government’s ill-thought-out energy strategy
to ‘frack’ Britain is pursued against the
wishes of communities.
The flooding last year should have been
the wake-up call to manage river catchment
areas and invest in longer, up-stream projects.
However, with the distribution of Government
support focused on the flooded areas, we
may only witness further incidences in the
light of how our climate is changing.
Fragmentation in our waste management
systems is resulting in poorer outcomes.
Ambitions over consumption and recycling
resources need to be incorporated into
business and domestic plans.
The rural communities are frustrated. The
lack of investment in everything including
public transport, broadband, rural policing
and local services, has created additional
inequality in those communities.
Finally, animal welfare needs to be
part of an integrated system. The leaked
announcement, for example, that the badger
cull will be extended is short-term and does
not address the real solution of a bovine TB
vaccine.
Labour is setting out a real ambition for
the future of rural Britain.
The UK plastics industry is crucial to the UK’s economic success. Its products
support many other sectors, including car production, healthcare, construction
and packaging — to name but a few. Our annual sales turnover is £23.5bn and
we are one of the UK’s biggest industrial employers, with a workforce of 170,000.
Plastics will be the material of the 21st century. Their light weight brings energy
savings and reduces pollution in transport applications. Their excellent insulation
properties provide energy efficiencies in buildings. As the global population rises,
plastics packaging will prevent food wastage through its durability, effective
barriers and tight seals.
The good news is that the UK is a global
leader in all these areas — and we plan
to consolidate this position. The British
Plastics Federation has just launched
a strategy for the UK plastics industry
(download available at www.bpf.co.uk/
strategy), which maps out the critical
requirements to keep the UK a key
global player. We have set ourselves
a progressive environmental agenda
building on recycling achievements,
embarked on an education and skills
initiative, and pointed to the future
importance of shale gas as a competitive
source of raw materials. We will also focus
on innovation in energy efficient products
and develop our manufacturing efficiency
by exploiting the possibilities of Industry
4.0.
In the light of Brexit it is imperative that
the government is correspondingly
supportive.
We are players in an international
industry. We import over 50% of our raw
materials and most of our processing
equipment. A significant degree of UK
industry is foreign-owned — as are our
customers. Full access to the European
single market is therefore crucial for our
competitiveness.
Over 10% of our staff are from other EU
member states. We need assurance that
their working rights will be undiminished.
There will inevitably be a focus on overseas business development. We need the
full support of UK government export programmes, particularly aimed at small and
medium-sized enterprises.
The UK plastics industry should certainly be on your radar, as you are likely to
have one or more plastics companies in your constituency. These local companies
may contact you to discuss these points — so please be mindful of all the plastics
industry brings to the UK and help us remain a key player on an international stage.
For further information contact:
Philip Law, Director General, The British Plastics Federation
Email: plaw@bpf.co.uk
Tel: 0207 457 5003
Address: 6 Bath Place, Rivington Street, London EC2A 3JE

politics first | Corridors
ADVERTORIAL
Countering dog abuse
at home and abroad
Henry Smith, Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal
Welfare and Conservative MP for Crawley
As the Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group
for Animal Welfare, I have worked, over the last year,
on a number of campaigns to raise awareness of the
importance of improved treatment and protection of
dogs.
Forecasting the future at fifty
Dr Kirsten Pullen,
Chief Executive Officer at BIAZA
76
Among the APPG’s officers are
Conservative, Labour, Green and Scottish
National Party MPs, as well as a crossbench
member of the House of Lords.
Last year, our APPG held the UK’s first
ever Dog Conference; this brought together
a whole range of stakeholders, including
DEFRA Minister George Eustice. I was also
delighted to bring my beagle, Frisbee, to
London to take part in the Westminster Dog
of the Year show!
Alongside the Kennel Club and the Dogs
Trust, I will continue to raise awareness of
the need to ensure dogs are protected. The
theme of last year’s event was to highlight
the importance of access for dog walkers
to the range of public open spaces in the
UK – there are health and welfare benefits to
dogs and their owners of making the most
of such areas.
Ahead of this year’s summer recess, I
once again joined with the League Against
Cruel Sports in Parliament. Its Project
Bloodline investigation lasted six months,
and sought to understand why, when and
where dog fighting takes place, as well
as how it can be stopped. I support the
campaign to both increase the custodial
sentences for such abuse to at least three
years, as well as the League’s call for a
national register of animal abusers.
Among the startling findings in their report
included prohibited dogs bred and sold in a
clandestine market in order to supply the
high demand for status and fighting dogs
with Pitbull-type puppies being sold for
£1,000, and a feral cat colony being kept to
supply “bait” for dog fighting.
Clearly, more needs to be done. It is
difficult for most of us to comprehend why
anyone would even contemplate training
dogs to fight, injure and kill.
There are a range of measures which
can be undertaken to help tackle those
problems. A key recommendation in this
area is to ensure a national register of
individuals banned from keeping dogs.
That will help prevent further offences from
being committed, while providing statutory
agencies with greater assistance in ensuring
enforcement action is taken.
The issue goes beyond animal welfare;
evidence from the UK and from abroad
points to such activity being a “gateway”
crime to organised offences such as drug
trafficking, illegal firearms and child abuse.
So, for example, in the United States, dog
fighting is recognised as a Grade A felony
by the FBI – the practise of tackling dog
fighting to prevent other crimes is well
established.
Outside of the UK, I am sure that anyone
who has seen the results of investigations
into the dog meat trade would be horrified
with some of the findings. The sight of dogs,
bred inhumanely to ensure their swift future
sale, is surely of deep concern to us all.
It is also a timely reminder that there are
ways in which the UK can be seen as a world
leader in animal welfare, and the Government
must not lose sight of its responsibility to
ensure it promotes such values as raising
standards of care, as well as ensuring more
compassionate treatments.
As a dog lover, I also welcomed new laws
which came into effect this April making it
compulsory for dogs to be microchipped.
DEFRA figures from before the law change
showed that more than 80 per cent of dog
owners had already complied with those
rules. The microchip means that if one of the
8.5 million dogs registered are found after
going missing, they can be reunited with
their owner.
The Government are expecting local
authorities and charities, which would,
otherwise, feed and home dogs which go
missing, to make £33 million in annual
savings if the dogs were to be microchipped
and returned to their owners.
I am always pleased to receive messages
from my constituents who support our
efforts to improve animal welfare, and I look
forward to continuing to raise these issues in
Parliament and Whitehall.
This year the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) is celebrating its 50th anniversary. It goes without saying that a
considerable amount of change has taken place within the zoo community since the Association was formed in 1966. Born as a result of
a growing change in public attitude towards zoos and zoo practice, the membership organisation brought together like-minded industry
experts who set out to develop standardised principles and practices in animal management, ensuring members achieved and maintained
the highest of standards. Today, BIAZA has 113 members throughout Britain and Ireland, with more applying to join, and we cover a political
remit of two national governments, three devolved governments and two crown dependencies.
Each year BIAZA zoos and aquariums receive more than 23 million visits, our members carry out over 700 research and research training
projects, they support more than 500 field conservation projects and contribute well over £10 million to field conservation. We are a strong,
active association and as such believe we are well placed to face the conservation challenges of the next 50 years.
As the Association uses its anniversary year to reflect on five decades of achievements, it has also given us an opportunity to look forward.
Much of what lies ahead is uncertain, and as we digest the news that the UK has voted to leave the EU we will, in the future, be operating
in a situation where a proportion of our members will be within the EU and a proportion outside. Brexit will impact on the activities of our
members in a variety of ways, and we ask that the UK government keeps our community in mind as our withdrawal is negotiated.
Our members work within the EU Zoos Directive which ultimately has been very effective in working to improve zoo and aquarium standards
across the European Region. Much of the detail of the Directive was drawn from the UK’s previously existing Zoo Licensing Act and we feel
strongly that its implementation must be protected.
Working cooperatively across the European Region, our members use networks facilitated by EU Animal Health laws to exchange animals
for conservation breeding programmes. This legislation, with the resulting level of disease monitoring, allows for easy transport of animals
across the EU. In order to protect our breeding programmes we must maintain a relationship with the EU that allows for the efficient transport
of animals across European borders.
As a profession we benefit greatly from partnering with and learning from other zoos and aquariums within the European Region and
beyond. Much of this transfer of skills and knowledge has been facilitated by the free movement of professionals within the EU and I am sure
we are not alone in emphasising our desire for the government to protect this professional exchange network.
Within the last twelve months a review of both the EU Habitats and the EU Birds Directives was carried out by the European Union. They were
both found to be fit for purpose and crucially have had a significant positive effective for conservation. As a wildlife charity, conservation is at
the heart of our mission. As we depart the EU we hope the government will evaluate the range of conservation and environmental protection
laws that we will no longer be subject to and replace relevant directives and regulations with effective UK legislation.
For more information on BIAZA, visit:
www.biaza.org.uk

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
The Hunting Act is at the
core of Conservative values
Is equality still on
anyone’s agenda?
Sir Roger Gale, Patron of Conservatives Against Fox Hunting and
Conservative MP for North Thanet
In a conference speech following the last general
election, David Cameron, as Prime Minister, spoke about
the journey to a modern, compassionate Conservative
Party. The British people, he said, are decent, sensible,
and reasonable, and it was these values that saw the
Conservative Party win the election in 2015.
Baroness Dianne Hayter, Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities
and a Labour Peer
Perhaps I have been in politics too long, as I increasingly
rail at the lack of progress in what I hold to be selfevident
truths: equal chances for all, equal opportunities
and equality of treatment.
The Conservative Party is the party of
British values and Britain has led the way
when it comes to animal welfare, with some of
the strongest animal welfare laws in the world.
As the attitudes of the British people
towards animals have developed over the
years, so, too, have the policies of the
Conservative Party. When the Hunting Act
was introduced in 2004, it had the support of
a handful of Conservative MPs. The party has
moved on since those days. There are now
at least 50 Conservative MPs against repeal
or amendment and this number is growing
all the time. That reflects the 70 per cent of
Conservative voters who support the Hunting
Act, as shown by the most recent Ipsos MORI
polling.
There are, of course, still those who wish
to repeal the Act, as there are also those who
would like to strengthen it. Fears over the
damage to the rural economy and to the rural
community have proved unfounded. Hunts
can continue, within the confines of the law.
It is, to paraphrase the former Prime Minister,
sensible and reasonable.
The decade since the ban was introduced
has seen the arguments in favour of hunting
fall away. There is no scientific evidence to
suggest that fox hunting is an effective means
of controlling the fox population. A 2006
study in Welsh forests found that high culling
pressure actually leads to increased fox
numbers. Indeed, the very basis for culling
– the extent to which fox predation impacts
on farming income – is questionable. Defra
research suggests that predators account for
only 5 per cent of annual lamb losses.
To suggest that hunting is central to the
rural way of life is to misunderstand rural
Britain. The British countryside should not
be reduced to a grim caricature centred on a
minority blood sport. Polling shows that 84
per cent of people in rural areas support the
ban on hunting, a figure which is higher than
support for the ban in urban areas. What rural
people want from a Conservative government
is improved broadband infrastructure, better
housing and more support for farmers - and
we are delivering all of these.
The Conservative Party is in government
because the British public trust us to ensure
that the country is handed to our children
in a better state than we found it in. That is
not limited to the economy. Responsible
stewardship of our land and resources is a
great British value and also a Conservative
value. We want to see our animals
protected and cherished, not tormented and
persecuted. The Hunting Act protects not just
foxes, but also hares - whose numbers have
dropped by 80 per cent over the last century
- and stags. If we are to be truly serious
about, as the party’s 2015 manifesto states,
“being the first generation to leave the natural
environment of England in a better state than
that in which we found it”, protecting those
species from unnecessary abuse must be
central to this aim.
When it comes to concern for animals,
party affiliation is irrelevant. Is there anything
more fundamentally British than caring for
those around you? For us, that quintessentially
British sense of duty must also be extended to
those who also feel pain and fear. The sight
of a fox chased to exhaustion and killed by
a pack of hounds is repugnant, whether
you are blue, red, yellow, or of any other
or no political persuasion. It speaks to the
strength of British politics that members of all
parties can come together to defend the most
vulnerable, whether human or animal, in our
society.
As Conservatives, we are proud to play a
leading role in that fight, and as MPs, we will
protect the Hunting Act. What it has achieved
lies at the core of Conservative beliefs –
compassion for others, treasuring the natural
environment, and respect for the law. The
Conservative Party is the party of Britain, and
defending animal welfare is a fundamentally
British value - decent, sensible, and
reasonable.
In the year that the UK celebrates its
second female Prime Minister, the University
of Oxford has its first female vice-chancellor,
the Head of the TUC and the First Minister in
Scotland are women (along with the leaders
of both the Conservative and Labour Scottish
parties), Germany’s Chancellor is female
and – I hope – we are about to see a female
President of the United States, readers might
well ask: is this not enough?
The answer is no because civic life, the
world of work and the wider political world
continue to be male-dominated. Only a
handful of the directly elected Mayors or
Council leaders are women, with the legal,
regulatory and academic worlds showing no
better example. Meanwhile, the figures for
ethnic minority representation are even worse.
Does any of that matter? And what will
bring around change?
Well, it matters for four reasons: human
rights, consumers, employees’ rights and for
the economy.
The first is obvious. It is surely everyone’s
right – male and female, white or ethnic
minority – to have an equal chance to a
decent education, career and to the care and
support which society provides.
In the breeding ground of future scientists,
scholars, civil servants and other leaders –
the universities – we find a dearth of senior
women. Dame Julia King, vice-chancellor
of Aston University, describes how the very
pictures found in corridors and common
rooms reveal the male-dominated culture. “If
you walk around most universities, you will
see portraits of elderly men on the walls”,
meaning that the lack of female faces can
make women feel as though they are intruding
in an all-male domain.
The resulting lack of gender or race
equality also means that decisions are taken
within a certain world view which excludes
“people not like us”. The Leaders’ life
experiences, reference groups, assumptions
and understandings cannot but be shaped by
who they are and who is around them. And
if those exclude large groups of society, it is
likely that decisions will reflect the interests
or judgements of the inner circle, not of
society as a whole.
So it matter for consumers or users of
the goods and services provided or overseen
by those institutions, be they the NHS and
social care, education, legal or financial
services, transport or any other aspect of our
daily life. Just as every single theatre and
most restaurants do not have enough ladies’
toilets - because their architects, accountants
or managers are male – so, too, are other
necessities designed with men in mind.
Similarly, the lack of anything approaching
representative numbers of women at board
level means that the top tier of employers
does not reflect the gender composition
of their workforce. Again, meaning the
experience and interests of women workers
rarely receive a fair hearing.
Finally, it matters to the economy. If
women’s or ethnic minorities’ talents are not
engaged and utilised, not just their company
loses out, but so, too, does the wider
economy. A loss we can little afford.
This is addressed to male, white readers!
Yes, it is you who have to smell the coffee
and act. Women and BAME groups have
campaigned enough, but without the power to
make a difference.
So I ask of the following: never appear
on an all-male platform or discussion
programme; never sit on an all-male
interviewing panel; involve women in drawing
up job specifications and recruitment
strategies; use BAME specialists both to hunt
out likely applicants, interns and mentors and
to advise on untapped potential; ensure that
anyone carrying out staff appointments has
undertaken equalities training; and monitor
and review your promotions and appointments
data – and be open about it (transparency is
key to addressing inequality so that must be
a priority).
Forty-five years on since my first article
on equal pay, I want to be able to move on
to other issues! Politics First readers have the
key to action – will you rise to the challenge?
78
79

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Preventing avoidable sight loss
will be the focus this autumn
Securing employment opportunities
for deaf people
Lord Colin Low, Co-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eye
Health and Visual Impairment and a Crossbench Peer
It is a surprising fact that people are needlessly losing
their sight in today’s NHS. That is not down to the
doctors who are working tirelessly, around the clock, to
save the sight of their patients. It is due to the continued
pressure being placed on the system by rising demand
for services.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford, Scottish National Party Group Leader on
Social Justice and SNP MP for Banff and Buchan
Reducing the disability employment gap is a huge
challenge, so all steps to tackle it are welcome.
Progress, however, will require more than a change
in tone from policymakers. Over the last decade, the
disability employment gap has grown whilst the overall
employment rate has increased. That tells us that
something is going badly wrong.
Financial pressures are also having an impact,
with NHS staff being asked to do ever more with
fewer resources - a formidable challenge!
The impact of sight loss on everyday life can
be enormous. It can prevent people from driving
and can lead to social isolation; it can stop them
from continuing in paid employment and having to
rely on benefits; and it can hamper their ability to
self-administer medications for other conditions.
Currently, there are almost two million people
living with sight loss in the UK and this is set to
double to around four million by 2050. The ageing
population is the main reason for that increase,
as the risk of developing a sight threatening eye
condition increases with age. While that puts
pressure on hospital eye departments, it is not
the only factor. The rapid increase in the number
of new eye treatments that are available is the
other factor. That is a welcome development but
it does mean that even more people are in the
NHS system being treated for sight conditions.
Since 2008, the number of new eye treatments
approved for use on the NHS has outstripped
many other specialties. Previously blinding
conditions - many of which are chronic such
as wet Age-related Macular Degeneration and
Glaucoma - can now be treated. Those patients
need to be monitored and treated regularly, often
at four weekly intervals. That explains why there
has been a 30 per cent increase in demand for
hospital eye care services over the past five
years, and why ophthalmology has the second
highest number of outpatient attendances for any
specialty across the NHS.
So what is the impact of the increased
demand on patient care?
It is clear that the number of follow-up
appointments required to manage chronic
eye conditions is putting a strain on eye
departments across the UK. Recent RNIB
research showed that many return patients
experienced hospital initiated delays to their
appointments. So, for example, a number
of wet AMD and Glaucoma patients were
interviewed for the study and reported that
their appointment was rescheduled (29 per
cent of respondents) or cancelled altogether
(12 per cent of respondents) during a 12
month period.
So do those delays result in needless sight
loss?
Evidence suggests that the answer to that
is yes. Data from the National Reporting and
Learning System, which collates patient safety
incident reports, showed an eleven-fold rise in
patients coming to harm between 2013 and
2014. The data means that patients will have
experienced unnecessary sight loss in one
way or another.
This March, The President of the Royal
College of Ophthalmologists commented
on a national study being conducted by the
College. Its aim is to identify patients who have
come to harm due to hospital initiated delays
to follow-up appointments. Preliminary results
indicate that 20 patients per month are coming
to harm, suffering severe and needless sight
loss, as a result of delays.
Clearly, that situation cannot continue and
something must be done.
So far, the eye care sector has responded by
publishing a number of guidelines, frameworks
and calls to action to help address the problem.
They include the recent Royal College of
Ophthalmologists’ three step plan to help
overwhelmed hospital eye departments cope
with demand for services.
Many of those documents, however, do
not offer what providers and commissioners
desperately need - workable solutions which can
be implemented in their area. They want proven
examples of where new models of care have
improved patient outcomes and helped meet
efficiency savings targets.
That is why the All Party Parliamentary Group
on Eye Health and Visual Impairment, which
I co-chair alongside Nusrat Ghani MP, will be
launching an inquiry this autumn. The aim is to
identify practical solutions, share them with NHS
providers and commissioners, and help them
create sustainable improvements for NHS eye
care and patients.
The inquiry, and an upcoming Parliamentary
reception, will provide parliamentarians with the
opportunity to engage with this issue on behalf of
their constituents. I hope they will join me in this
endeavour to protect the sight of people living in
the UK.
People who are deaf or have hearing loss
often face barriers when trying to access
the Labour market. Research by YouGov
commissioned by Action on Hearing Loss
suggests that 35 per cent of businesses would
not feel confident in effectively employing a
person who is deaf or has hearing loss, while
57 per cent of employers surveyed feel that
there is a lack of support for those employing
a person who is deaf or who has hearing loss.
Yet, worryingly, 63 per cent of employers
have never heard of Access to Work – the fund
that is supposed to help employers meet the
extra costs of employing disabled people.
Maybe we should not be too surprised - the
Work and Pensions Select Committee once
dubbed the scheme as the “DWP’s hidden
secret.” It is a missed opportunity. If the
Government is really committed to halving
the disability employment gap, it needs to
provide employers with the support they
need, and needs to publicise more widely
existing measures like Access to Work that
already work well.
The vast majority of disabled people are
able to work and want to work. Enabling them
to access the labour market more easily
should be pushing at an open door, but the
‘one size fits nobody’ approach of recent
years - like the Work Programme - have been
far less successful than tailored, personcentred
employment support services, like
Action of Hearing Loss’s unique “Moving On”
programme, which has delivered a 60 per cent
success rate in leading people who are deaf
or have hearing loss to positive destinations
in employment.
Jobseekers who are deaf or have hearing
loss need personalised employment support,
but the current system fails to provide
adequate tailored support consistently. The
Government’s long awaited new Work and
Health Programme provides an opportunity
to overhaul the barriers to work for many
disabled people, including those who are
deaf. Consideration must be given to the role
that third sector providers - who are able to
offer a more specialist, personalised service
– can play, and their expertise in developing
the new programme.
If good quality employment support for
jobseekers can be matched with quality
support for employers, there is a winwin
situation. There are tangible personal
economic and social benefits to be gained
from employment – but we need to provide
practical support and advice to employers to
improve their confidence in overcoming their
preconceptions and making any adaptations
which might be required. Encouraging
small and medium-sized businesses to take
on more disabled staff will be essential to
reducing the employment gap but will only
happen if the right support is available.
Yet there are threats to progress. By 2018,
employees in receipt of Access to Work grants
will have their awards capped, which will have
a disproportionate impact on people who are
deaf, or have hearing loss. Those people
benefit from Access to Work, providing BSL
interpretation and communication support to
allow them to be actively involved in all types
of business.
The UK Government is due to publish
its long awaited Green paper on disability
employment. The SNP will use this
consultation process to talk about the real
benefits of Access to Work, and tailored,
personalised employment support services
like Moving On. It is time that the UK
Government matched that ambition and
becomes truly committed to providing support
to help disabled people into employment.
In Scotland, we have a unique opportunity
to change the ethos of social security. Our
government has already committed to putting
fairness, dignity and equality at the heart of
our social security service – the devolved
powers in this area may be limited, but it
will be important to use them for maximum
impact.
80
81

politics first | Corridors
The objectives ahead of the reformed
Education Select Committee
Neil Carmichael, Chair of the Education Select Committee
and Conservative MP for Stroud
The momentous decision which our country reached
this June, by a decisive, but narrow margin, to leave
the European Union, has upended many certainties in
political life overnight.
82
The new Prime Minister, Theresa
May, swiftly and decisively formed a
new government. It differs markedly in
terms of personnel and structure from the
government of David Cameron. It is not
unusual for changes to be made – look back
to recent but similar transitions where James
Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown
all put their own stamp on the government
of the day – but the scale of change this
time has more than raised eyebrows.
One obvious reason for that is the result
of the recent referendum. Brexit represents
a massive change of policy direction and
therefore requires new approaches. Two
new departments have been created to
deliver the decision to leave the EU: the
Department for Exiting the EU – charged
with the task of dealing with the huge
complexities associated with over 43 years
of membership – and the Department of
International Trade, necessary to negotiate
new free trade agreements.
But other departments have also been
reshaped. The Department of Education is
a case in point. Four years ago, I proposed
a reform of it to provide for all levels of
education to be covered by one department.
That has now happened so the Education
Select Committee, which I chair, now covers
early years to universities and beyond. And
that is not unrelated to the EU because our
departure from it will bring new urgency
to the challenge about how we equip
our young people with the skills the UK
needs to survive and prosper in the world.
A challenge we struggled with both before,
during and now after our membership of
the EU. Government and business, alike,
will surely have to learn to rely less on
foreign workers to plug existing skills gaps
and much more on upskilling our own
population.
I foreshadowed that development by
helping to create the joint-committee
on productivity, formed from parts of the
Education committee and the Business,
Innovation and Skills committee. The
committee has already produced a report on
careers advice (where advice for our young
people continues to be disjointed and
woeful) and it is working on other projects
but might, itself, be rejigged following
the consequential changes of the Prime
Minister’s reshuffle.
I spoke at many universities across the
country during the referendum campaign.
As we now know, 73 per cent of 18 – 24 year
old’s voted to Remain. The opportunities to
work, study and travel across the breadth
of the enlarged EU are huge achievements
which only this generation have known –
and ones that the students and young often
cited for our continued membership of a
reformed EU. They are rightly concerned
about what their future now holds.
Over 200,000 students and 20,000
staff have benefitted from study abroad
through ERASMUS work and study
placements – which is the biggest
source of funding for study abroad.
In fact, it has been a UK Government priority
to increase the numbers of UK students
gaining international experience, and
students who have pursued such experience
have been shown to be more likely to start
their own business, driving the skilled
employment and increased productivity
of the UK economy that we need to see
to succeed in the global marketplace.
Likewise, EU students studying in the UK
are estimated to contribute over £2 billion to
the UK economy and support 19,000 British
jobs in the local communities. Maintaining
those links and opportunities is going to be
of huge importance for a Brexit Britain.
None of us should want to see a return
to the divided Europe before 1989 – 1990.
That is neither in the interests of the EU or
of a Brexit Britain which wants to continue to
make its way in the world.
Adjusting to Brexit represents a huge
challenge for our universities – and, indeed,
all institutions in 16 – 19 Education. The
Education Select Committee’s work over
the next year is to work with universities and
further education colleges to ensure that
they can continue to turn out the properly
educated people our industries will require
in order to compete in this new world that
they will face.

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
How the north of England’s transport
and local infrastructure is neglected
The importance of overseas development
assistance in tackling malaria
Peter Dowd, Labour MP for Bootle
Even in the age of cyberspace, I expect people do, on
occasion, have to leave their homes. I do. Visiting the
shops, getting to work, visiting family or friends or going
on holiday all require a transport infrastructure, of one
form or other.
Jeremy Lefroy, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria
and Neglected Tropical Diseases and Conservative MP for Stafford
Kananga, a city of more than one million people, in the
province of Kasai Centrale, in DR Congo, is not easy
to reach. However, the work which has been done to
control and treat malaria in Kananga and Kasai Centrale
is showing encouraging results in a country which has
the second largest malaria burden in the world.
We all have one thing in common. The
infrastructure is just a stride away. As soon as
people walk out of their house, they step onto
a pavement and therein have become one with
public infrastructure.
Regrettably, however, at that point the
common experience ends. If you live in
London, you become part of a community
which, annually, has significantly more spent
on its infrastructure, including transport, than
other parts of the country. That provides a
comparatively, I emphasise comparatively, good
deal by the standards of other regions. Although,
compared to the historic investment in the
transport infrastructure in, for example, Germany
and France, the UK remains in the foothills.
In England, the nearest rivals to the rail,
road or pedestrians of London are those living
in the North West. In the North East, our fellow
citizens get an even worse deal. We are told
that London, and I acknowledge this, is the
economic powerhouse of the country and needs
the investment. But that becomes a circular
argument as more demands more.
Having set the context, you might ask,
so what? In answer, I would use an example
of a major economic investment underway
in my constituency which highlights a
funding mismatch connected with transport
infrastructure. The constituency I represent has
the Port of Liverpool within it. It is undergoing
major investment, with the building of a new
£300 million container terminal - Liverpool2 –
that will significantly increase the capacity of this
centrally located deep water container port. It is
currently the UK’s primary transatlantic port with
strong connections to other overseas markets
and which, in light of Brexit, surely gives it an
edge. Hopefully, other port-related investments
are in the pipeline.
But regardless of the current private
investment, the transport infrastructure serving
the Port of Liverpool is in need of significant
public investment. The roads are under strain
and the rail port capacity is struggling, to say
the least. So whilst Crossrail 1 has had over
£200 million per rail mile spent on it, one of the
country’s major ports will have just £10 million,
in total, spent on the rail connection over a three
year period and only part of that is taxpayer
money. By contrast, the figure for Crossrail 2 is
likely to reach over £300 million per rail mile.
Network Rail seems incapable of
understanding the importance of rail investment
to the port. Meanwhile, Highways England are
consulting on possible new road investments to
the port. But, will we get any tunnelling on any
new potential route to mitigate the environmental
impact, such as lorries spewing out nitrogen
oxide and fine particles? Crossrail 1 did, so hope
springs eternal.
When major investment by the private sector
in a local economy impacts upon the local
transport infrastructure, it is not unreasonable
to ask for a commitment from government. The
reasonable “ask” which my local community has
of government is simple: it is the commitment
to ensure that the local multi modal transport
infrastructure is of sufficient standard to cope,
preferably in advance of the private investment.
Alas, a forlorn hope in our experience.
In short, there are a number of factors which
militate against the development of a sustainable
transport infrastructure in my constituency, in
particular, and the regions, in general.
Firstly, the current levels of overall investment
in transport infrastructure, compared with some
European rivals, are a drag on both growth and
productivity.
Secondly, combined with the bulk of that
expenditure being significantly regionally
imbalanced and skewed, the ability of many
parts of the country to enhance and maintain
economic grow becomes increasingly
challenging.
Thirdly, where fitful economic growth
does occur, people become sceptical and
disconnected as the deficits in the transport
infrastructure begin to outweigh the benefits of
the patchy growth.
In that context, perhaps the diversions of
cyberspace become even more inviting and
attractive.
The wall charts in the Centre de Sante
Mbumba, just outside Kananga, and rebuilt with
support from UK taxpayers, showed a sharp
decline in malaria cases between 2014 and
2016 since the mass distribution of insecticide
treated bednets. The pharmacy, too, was well
stocked with the most effective anti-malarials,
almost all in date.
The great progress made in cutting deaths
from malaria over the past twenty years is one
of the many reasons why overseas development
assistance is essential. In 1995, up to 2,700,000
people died from malaria, mainly children and
women; in 2015, deaths were estimated at
approximately 438,000 out of a larger global
population.
Almost all of those approximate 438,000
deaths - and those which take place every year -
could have been prevented with the tools which
we already have at our disposal: effective drugs,
insecticide treated bednets, rapid diagnostic
tests and indoor spraying.
That is why the evidence we saw in DR
Congo was encouraging. It is precisely in those
areas which are harder to reach that we need to
concentrate work, if those cases and deaths are
to be prevented.
An increase in ODA has been at the heart of
that work. But there have been many others who
have contributed very large amounts of money.
Foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, businesses such as Novartis,
GSK, Sumitomo and Sanofi, and, above all,
the countries in which malaria is, or has been
endemic in, have all contributed substantially.
ODA these days is much smaller than other
flows of money into developing countries. In
2014, it was $135,000 million compared with
private remittances of $583,000 million, inward
investment of $681,000 million and the money
raised by developing countries themselves
through taxation. That is sometimes used as a
reason for saying that ODA is insignificant.
I disagree. The days of very large cash grants
to Governments are largely over. But welltargeted
aid can be combined with resources
from developing country governments and the
private sector to tackle national, regional or
global problems. Malaria is one such example.
Alongside cooperation, we need certainty
and consistency. Research programmes into
new drugs for malaria, TB, HIV/AIDS and against
antimicrobial resistance take years, sometimes a
decade or more, to develop. That is particularly
important where we are seeing serious resistance
developing to existing drugs, as is the case in
South East Asia against the most effective antimalarials
we currently possess.
One example of the benefits of consistency
is the Innovative Vector Control Consortium
programme, based at the Liverpool School of
Tropical Medicine. That is helping to develop
new insecticides to overcome growing
resistance to the pyrethroids used on malaria
bed nets. The programme started more than 10
years ago and the first new effective products
are just starting to be used. Without consistent
funding from a number of donors, it would not
have been possible to make such progress.
We are in the middle of two major calls
for funding. The Global Fund’s replenishment
for 2017-2019 will shortly be concluded.
By the end of this year, countries will also
have made their commitments to the World
Bank’s fund for the poorest countries - the
International Development Association - also
for 2017-2019. Three year funding rounds are
certainly an improvement on fluctuating annual
commitments. But I believe that even longerterm
commitments (10 years or longer) are
needed for the work which involves long-term
research, development and implementation. The
UK’s commitment to invest £500 million per
annum to fight malaria, until 2020, is a welcome
example of providing greater certainty.
The greatest long-term commitment that
can be made is, of course, by Governments
themselves doing what they have pledged to do.
All African Governments, for instance, need to
spend the 15 per cent of their budget on health
as they agreed at Abuja in 2001; and all G7
countries should fulfil their promise to commit
0.7 per cent of Gross National Income to ODA.
Declaration of interests: Jeremy Lefroy is
a member of the International Development
Committee of the House of Commons. He is
also on the Board of the Liverpool School of
Tropical Medicine and the IVCC and chairs the
Board of the Parliamentary Network on the World
Bank and IMF.
84
85

politics first | Corridors
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Will Brexit affect
the energy sector?
Leadership elections:
lessons for PR practitioners
Carl Thomson, Director, The Whitehouse Consultancy
Francis Ingham, Director General of the Public Relations Consultants Association
The theme of politics following the European Union
referendum has been that of “uncertainty”. As a result
of the decision to leave the EU, the future direction of
energy policy in the UK is ambiguous and unclear.
“Not Flash. Just Gordon.” Who remembers that slogan?
That attempt to make a virtue of an apparently unshowy
character? The contrast with the showmanship of his
predecessor, in much the same way as John Major
achieved following Margaret Thatcher, and having
beaten Michael Heseltine.
There is no guarantee that Britain will
continue to participate in many of the
agreements which have sought to ensure
security of supply and a competitive energy
market, while the composition of a new
government could herald an overhaul of the
current regulatory environment.
During the campaign, the Remain side
warned that leaving the EU could see bills
increase by £20 per household per year, and
suggested the UK would face additional costs
when importing gas from abroad. The Energy
Institute’s annual barometer, published a week
before the referendum, showed that industry
feared the UK would be “less secure and less
green” outside the EU.
Yet those fears may be overstated. Ongoing
concerns about the stability of Russia as a
gas supplier, and a desire to diversify away
from imported gas, means the EU will be keen
to keep barriers to energy transit low, rather
than building new ones. The UK has been a
strong advocate for a cross-border energy
market and has championed key aspects
of the Third Energy Package – a legislative
programme with the agenda of liberalising
the EU’s gas and electricity market – such as
ownership unbundling and market coupling. It
is inconceivable that we will move away from
that approach after Brexit.
Indeed, given the UK’s commitment to an
open energy market, negotiations may allow
our continued involvement in the Energy Union,
which is being pushed by Member States such
as Poland and Estonia who will be looking
for a commitment to European security from
Britain, even after we leave the EU. While the
UK will have less ability to shape the rules,
many commentators expect that we will remain
tied to the emissions trading market and could
even retain membership of the institutions that
coordinate pan-European energy regulation,
such as the Agency for Cooperation of Energy
Regulators (ACER) or ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G.
Similarly, it is questionable whether
withdrawal from the EU will see a rollback from
the UK’s commitment to meet international
climate change targets. In previous
negotiations, Britain was an enthusiastic
proponent of tougher targets, rather than a
reluctant participant. The current emissions
reduction targets are enshrined in law under
the Climate Change Act 2008, while the
fourth carbon budget, and its requirement to
reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2025, has
already been approved by parliament. Neither
the Conservatives nor Labour have shown
willingness to revisit that legislation.
One area where we could see divergence
between the UK and the EU is in the energy mix. In
the last few years, there has been a shift towards
non-renewables, with some technologies, such
as onshore wind, falling out of favour. Theresa
May is likely to seek greater autonomy over
how the UK chooses to decarbonise, with
the emphasis on replacing coal with shale
gas alongside a new nuclear programme – in
contrast to countries like Germany which still
consider nuclear taboo.
There are two potential impacts for investors.
The first is whether Brexit will affect projects
which expect to receive EU grants or loans.
European Investment Bank funding in the UK
energy sector reached €3.5 billion in 2014. It
is not clear what alternative sources of finance
might be available or whether the Government
will plug the gap.
Secondly, there is uncertainty about the
future of state aid rules. Some have argued that
leaving the EU will give the Government more
leeway to direct subsidies to technologies such
as small scale nuclear or fracking. However, if
the UK opts for the EEA model for a post-Brexit
relationship with the EU, state aid restrictions
will still apply. Even under a “hard Brexit”, World
Trade Organisation regulations will hamper
the ability of the Government to pump-prime
innovation and infrastructure development.
Brexit will not have catastrophic
consequences for the energy sector. Investment
will continue. Britain will continue to be a global
player, whose market is influenced by global
factors. Alongside the risk and uncertainty, there
is a world of opportunities. The key to realising
those opportunities will be the extent to which
the energy sector can offer a compelling
post-EU solution to the trilemma of security,
affordability and sustainability.
It worked for a while, but then it failed.
Maybe in different circumstances it would
have triumphed. Maybe the political
fundamentals were just set too heavily against
Gordon Brown. Maybe the political cycle had
just come to a natural end. Who knows.
The memory of it came back to me as
a result of watching the surprisingly rapid
turnaround in leadership which has been
seen in our country over the past two months.
Politically, a different era, yet only an historical
blink in time.
Very few in my industry predicted a
Brexit vote. Even fewer (anybody?) predicted
a Theresa May Premiership, and the
defenestration not just of the then PM but also
of the man who had turned the referendum
campaign on its head. Who had, arguably,
changed its result, and the course of British
history with it.
Combine that with what is going on in
Labour, and contrast it with the daily tumult
that is the US contest, and surely there
are lessons to be drawn for and from PR
practitioners? Well, I have identified a few.
Firstly, communications do not have to
be flashy to be successful. Boris Johnson
is a fantastic communicator. In a debating
school competition, you would back him
over Theresa May pretty much every time.
But he is not the Prime Minister. And she is.
Sometimes, the ability to conjure up lucid
and compelling images and narratives is not
enough. The strength of the message, as well
as its clothing, matters, too. And, after all,
as the biographer of Winston Churchill, the
Foreign Secretary should know this – Clement
Attlee won, Churchill lost. At least on two out
of their three fights.
Secondly, sometimes, silence truly is
golden. Theresa May was vilified for keeping
almost entirely silent in the European Union
Referendum debate. Plenty of people said
that that silence had dammed her in the eyes
of both camps. That she was through. On
the morning of the result, there were plenty,
too, who said that Boris’ boldness had won
him the keys to Number 10. Not quite, eh?
Because sometimes, not saying something is
as good a plan as being a megaphone.
Thirdly, authenticity matters. Labour’s
leader looks set to be re-elected - against
all of the odds, and against the wishes of
virtually all of the PLP. Why? Because to
the people who vote, he is authentic. And
authenticity matters more than ever in this
age of transparency - this period of revulsion
against the manufactured soundbite and the
contrived image.
Fourthly, narratives can be hard to
change. Having said that, it would be a bold
communications professional who took
Jeremy Corbyn as his client. The narrative
has been set, and the mood music has been
created. Political leaders’ reputation is defined
in the first few months of their assuming
office. And as William Hague found before
him, they sometimes simply never shift.
Fifthly, the loudest voices are not the only
ones. Words that every pollster should stick
onto their desk and repeat every day. It is
becoming more and more difficult to divine
public opinion, which is ironic in a social
media era.
Sixthly, people are talking to their minimes.
Witness the shock of many Remainers:
“but I do not know anybody who voted to
Leave.” The same shock that many Labour
voters experienced: “Who on earth votes
Tory?” Successful communicators talk to
people who disagree with them. And that
certainly means they follow people on Twitter
who are on the other side.
And finally, claims have to be
believable. Perhaps the biggest one of all.
Communication works best when it is
measured, reasonable and credible. My
view - and one I expressed in the weeks
before the referendum result - was that Project
Fear was self-destructive. It was just too
much. People are not fools, and politicians
who wish to lead them, and communications
professionals who wish to speak to them,
need always to bear that simple fact in mind.
If you are going to lie, lie big, might have been
the insight of the past. It is not the ethos of
the future.
86
87

politics first | Spotlight
ADVERTORIAL
britain in the world:
is the foreign office fit for service?
88
Emily Thornberry
Shadow Foreign Secretary, Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Labour MP
for Islington South and Finsbury
In Ed Balls’ new book, Speaking Out, we discover George Osborne’s reaction
when Mr Balls – then Osborne’s Treasury shadow – told him he was worried
about what impact the further devolution of tax powers to Holyrood would
have on the sustainability of the economic union between Scotland and the
rest of the UK.
Mr Osborne’s response was: “Let’s worry about that after the
referendum.” This Tory government has always been one to act first and
worry about the consequences later: the plunge into austerity post-2010;
the NHS White Paper; Libya; and the European Union referendum, to name
just a few of the many examples.
As far as David Cameron and George Osborne were concerned, they did
not do Plan Bs, and were always too arrogant - and too reckless - to see the
need for them. They have both now paid the price with their jobs, but the
country is still living with the consequences.
If you want to see the sheer scale of that arrogance and recklessness,
go back to the Spending Review of October 2010. Incoming ministers were
given just five months to assess all the issues facing their departments, and
offer up proposals for the biggest cuts in decades to the programmes and
manpower required to deal with them.
In department after department, we can look back and see how utterly
short-sighted and catastrophic those cuts were. And now we can add to
that list of avoidable errors the huge cuts imposed on the Foreign Office
in 2010, which have left that once proud and world-leading department
looking hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with the impact of Brexit and the
new relationships it will require the UK to strike with countries around the
world.
And nobody can say that Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne and then Foreign
Secretary William Hague were not warned. While they saw the civil servants
and overseas offices as an easily-expendable target, these individuals, with
rather more expertise in the matter, knew the calamity this would cause.
By 2014-15, the Foreign Office budget had been cut by 16.1 per cent,
and its core budget for administration and diplomacy had been reduced to
just over one billion pounds. As the Tory chair of the Foreign Affairs Select
Committee said, these cuts went “beyond just trimming fat: capacity now
appears to be being damaged.”
The Committee said that the Foreign Office was “struggling to
fill positions in critical business areas”, and that expertise within the
department was viewed by many to have suffered, particularly in terms of
local knowledge overseas. “To impair the FCO’s analytical capacity for the
sake of a few million pounds could be disastrous and costly.”
At the end of the last Parliament, we were left with a Foreign Office
that was overly-centralised, focused on the wrong priorities, losing local
knowledge and influence overseas, and – as former ambassador to the
United Nations Jeremy Greenstock put it – a “fading power” on the world
stage.
Even an internal report conducted by former Downing Street foreign
policy advisor and ex-ambassador to the Lebanon, Tom Fletcher, reached
the same conclusion: “We are a ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our core
purpose is to work overseas to increase the UK’s influence, prosperity and
security. But only one-third of our UK staff are overseas and two-thirds of
our staff overseas are working on corporate issues.”
It was too little, too late that George Osborne’s 2015 Spending Review
promised to maintain Foreign Office spending in real-terms – and this
could not begin to repair the damage that had been done, and the desperate
absence of capacity within the Foreign Office even to plan for the potential
impact of Brexit, let alone manage it.
Even before the vote, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee had warned
of the “regrettable” absence of any apparent contingency planning by the
Foreign Office. Writing after the vote, this July, they were not so restrained:
“The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments
including the FCO to plan for the possibility that the electorate would vote
to leave the EU amounted to gross negligence. It has exacerbated postreferendum
uncertainty both within the UK and amongst key international
partners, and made the task now facing the new Government substantially
more difficult.”
From a Tory-led select committee, that is an utterly damning verdict,
but it is also a simple statement of reality. The Foreign Office is literally not
prepared for the task it now faces, but this is no fault of the hard-working
civil servants and diplomats who manage and staff the department.
Like the rest of Brexit, it is a mess entirely of David Cameron and George
Osborne’s own making, and it is the only legacy for which they should be
remembered.
OP ED BY IMRAN MADDEN
FOR POLITICS FIRST
Few people can have anticipated a year ago what a changed
political and economic landscape we would find ourselves in
today.
As the UK prepares to bring its 43-year membership of the EU to
an end following the Brexit vote, we have a new Prime Minister
in Number 10, a mass of changes in the line-ups of Cabinet and
Shadow Cabinet and a long list of trade and other relationships
and agreements to develop or renegotiate. If I had to pick one word
that sums up these tumultuous times, it would be ‘uncertain’.
With so much uncertainty, the instinct of some will be to
contract. A contraction of policy and public spending, to focus
more exclusively on communities and lives here in the UK. A
contraction in the media, to pay less heed to events further afield
and more to those closer to home.
It is certainly easier to communicate a narrative that is immediately
relatable to the target audience: it sells more papers and it wins
more votes. But I passionately believe that now is not the time to
turn in on ourselves and away from the wider world. If we do so we
will be neglecting our wider responsibilities as one of the world’s
richest countries and we will risk becoming isolated, insular and
irrelevant.
An argument that has been gaining attention in recent months
is the one that says we should abandon the UK’s commitment
to spend 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid to free
up funds for domestic priorities. “Why are we paying billions of
pounds to help foreigners,” the argument goes, “with so much
poverty and inequality on our own doorstep?”
It is a reasonable question to ask, of course. Some view international
aid as a luxury when times are good, and therefore an obvious
target for cuts when the going gets tough. But international aid
spending is driven by a moral imperative to respond to extreme
poverty and suffering, and is also in our own national interest.
Aid partnerships, and the investment they make in building
opportunity and prosperity in the wider world, contribute towards
both foreign policy influence and trading opportunities for British
business. And at the end of the day that 0.7% is not an absolute
amount but a percentage pegged to the state of our economy
– if the pie gets smaller, for whatever reason, the funds made
available for foreign aid will be reduced.
The UK’s international aid programme is extremely well regarded
and appreciated internationally. If there were an Olympics for
excellence in this sphere, Team DFID would pick up a lot of medals,
just like Team GB in Rio. Islamic Relief has first-hand experience
of how effective British aid can be when it targets the poorest
and most vulnerable and empowers them to lift themselves out of
poverty. We need bold voices in politics, the media and the third
sector to tell this story, and to speak up for the poor communities
overseas who don’t have a direct voice in our politics.
International development plays an unheralded part in maintaining
the UK’s ‘soft power’. By committing 0.7% of national income to
foreign aid we are sending a strong message to the international
community that we stand in solidarity with them, that we put
our money where our mouth is when it comes to humanitarian
values, and that the UK remains an open and inclusive country –
despite navigating the uncharted waters of Brexit. By responding
generously to the refugee crisis we reinforce something important
at the core of British values – welcoming the stranger, and
providing a place of refuge for the oppressed.
I believe that our commitment to international aid will reflect what
kind of country we want to be outside the European Union. Will
we be outward looking and progressive, innovative and adaptable;
or will we turn in on ourselves, raise the drawbridge and seek
scapegoats where we should be seeking allies?
With our country’s ultimate position on the world stage still to
be defined, it is now more important than ever that we maintain
a progressive and outward facing approach to foreign aid. I look
forward to working with policymakers, the media and third sector
colleagues to reframe this crucial debate.

politics first | Spotlight
Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh
Shadow Scottish National Party Westminster Group Leader for Trade and Investment
and SNP MP for Ochil and South Perthshire
90
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the eyes and ears of the UK
Government abroad, and the face we present to the wider world.
In the aftermath of the European Union Referendum result, now
more than ever are the eyes of the world are upon the UK. Every public
statement issued by Theresa May’s Government will be carefully picked
apart and analysed for subtext and nuance by diplomats across the
globe, all of whom will be trying to piece together a picture of how the
UK pictures itself in a post-EU context.
So it is important to us that we put our best foot forward. We must
not only act thoughtfully, but must also present ourselves to the world in
a way which clearly conveys our intentions and sets out our principles
for all to see.
That can be viewed as a challenge to the existing hegemony, or
we can use the opportunity to recast our image abroad, and project a
contemporary vision of a country with forward thinking, modern values.
With the great tests and uncertainties which face the global
community today, the UK cannot afford to rely on our past reputation;
we must, instead, choose to be a progressive force for good in the
modern world.
But if we want to grasp the chance to use soft power to influence
the world around us, and champion positive values like equality and
diversity, we must have a foreign and diplomatic service which is seen
to be fully representative of our diverse and equal society.
As things stand, the FCO is failing to rise to the opportunity. Only one
of the current team of five Ministers is female, and it is well known that
the shortlist drawn up last year to fill the vacant Permanent Secretary’s
role failed to contain a single female candidate. And that image of a
male-dominated service is replicated at the higher levels of the service.
Each year, the FCO has published a Diversity and Equality Report,
setting out the Department’s progress on a range of equality objectives.
Ominously, this year’s report remains unpublished (as I write in mid-
August), despite the fact that previous surveys have been made public
in the Spring.
Previous reports have shown that the most senior female civil
servants in the FCO were paid less than men at the same grade. It has
missed targets on recruitment of women to senior roles, and has failed
to make significant progress in the appointment of women as overseas
heads of mission. We have around half the female ambassadors as the
Nordic counties of Norway, Sweden and Finland.
That poor record also lags behind the rest of the civil service.
Why are women good enough to achieve pay parity at a senior level
when running our benefits system or in the Treasury, but not to engage
in diplomacy and promotion of the UK abroad?
So how can we address the issue with the urgency that it deserves?
We need to think outside the box if we are to overcome the structural
and historical barriers which have prevented the progression of women
to the senior echelons of the service.
How can we get more women with the talent and commitment to
succeed to the top of the service quickly? Given the urgency of the
situation, should we look at ways to bring in female talent from other
branches of the civil service and fast track their progress to enable
the required change? Do we need to extend the drive for equality to
outside the traditional recruiting pools and into the wider public sector
and beyond?
Only by addressing those fundamental issues of equality can the FCO
rise to the modern challenges we face on the world stage.
We cannot meet the twenty-first century head on with a workforce that
is rooted in twentieth century values and mind-sets.
The FCO has a worldwide network of embassies and consulates,
employing over 14,000 people in nearly 270 diplomatic offices. We
need more women at the top level now if we are to prepare ourselves
properly for the difficult times ahead.

politics first | Spotlight
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Tom Brake
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs Spokesman and Liberal Democrat MP for Carshalton and Wallington
Crispin Blunt
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and Conservative MP for Reigate
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a long standing tradition
within the international community of being one of the premier
diplomatic services. In the past, the FCO has been the mouthpiece
through which Britain has shown leadership in times of turmoil, helping
contribute to the standing of Britain in the global arena. However, the
highly-regarded institution faces major challenges and changes in the
upcoming years.
Brexit has cast a shadow over the department. The creation of the
Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for
International Trade further chips away at what one former top diplomat
described as the FCO’s fading global reach. Coupled with the cuts in
the last Parliament, and at a time when the Foreign Office is being asked
to take on a greater role in invigorating new trade deals, this means the
department is being stretched to its absolute limits.
In the wake of the recent Brexit vote, there is a widespread view
that top civil servants from various departments within Whitehall will
leave to join the DEEU (or DX, as recently appointed Chief Brexiteer
David Davis likes to call it). That will only contribute to the perception
of the Foreign Office being downgraded, raising questions over how an
institution whose funding is flat-lining and may be about to suffer the
brain-drain of its top civil servants, can be expected to modernise and
evolve to combat complex global issues, such as the refugee crisis,
the rise of Daesh and an expansionist Russia. Indeed, the FCO has set
itself the task of keeping the UK a major player on the world stage,
tackling threats to security and prosperity, protecting British interests,
and upholding British values. Any of those tasks, alone, would be a
challenge, and one has to question which will be given less priority as
we slowly trudge towards eventual Brexit.
This crisis of identity is not ring-fenced within the department, as
undoubtedly the three Brexiteers, namely Boris Johnson, David Davis
and Liam Fox, are likely to clash over not only over who gets the top
talent, but also over their own roles in future negotiations. Questions are
already being raised over who will be in charge, with Davis suggesting
that he will be able to pull rank over the other two Brexiteers, yet in an
official list his role was ranked below the Foreign Secretary in terms
of Cabinet seniority. Those internal feuds will detract from the FCO’s
ability to maintain its position within the global community, as the other
two departments seek to cement their value and status.
An area which will, undoubtedly, take more of a backseat going
forward is the promotion of human rights. This government has happily
dealt with human rights and economic development as separate issues.
They are not. In fact, the two are actually inextricably intertwined. There
are fundamental links between rights’ denial, impoverishment and
conflict, evidenced by the troubled Middle East. Prioritising human
rights, along with economic development, will be key to resolving the
issues within this region. Indeed, Tunisia is lighting the way for others
to follow.
However, if this Government’s track record is anything to go by, it
economic ties will continue to take precedent. That was most clearly
demonstrated in the ex-Chancellor’s recent visit to China, during which
he was described as “the first Western official in recent years who has
stressed more the region’s business potential instead of finding fault
over the human-rights issue.” With Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary,
it is reasonable to assume that human rights will not move any higher
up the Foreign Secretary’s agenda.
If competition between Brexiteers was not deleterious enough for the
FCO, the cracks within the department have been widening for years.
The UK spends less per head on diplomacy than countries such as the
US, Germany, France, Australia and Canada, all countries that the UK
will want to do trade deals with. Although value for money is important,
services are under constant threat and vital skills are in worryingly short
supply. A report last year noted that only about a quarter, and falling,
of staff in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Central Asia had the
requisite language skills. That shrinking skill set, coupled with the
possibility of top civil servants being poached by rival departments and
more budget cuts, could truly diminish the role of the FCO.
Brexit does mean Brexit, but the Government must not allow UK
foreign policy to become completely consumed by it. The world has
not stopped spinning because we are planning on leaving the EU, the
war in Syria will not pause for the UK to trigger Article 50, nor will
refugees fleeing war-torn countries miraculously find a home. Chatham
House has suggested that spending 0.2 per cent of GDP on diplomacy
would help cement Britain and the FCO’s position in the world. If the
Government is serious about maintaining Britain’s global standing and
helping solve the issues which plague the world today, more must be
done to protect our most invaluable institution which makes it possible
for the UK to do so. Guaranteeing 0.2 per cent for diplomacy, and fully
committing to the human right agenda, would be a good start.
It is almost a tradition for former senior diplomats to appear before the
Foreign Affairs Committee and inform it, in sorrowful tones, that the
staff are doing their very best but that the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office is not what it once was and is not valued within Government,
that it has been cut to the bone, that diplomatic staff no longer have
the time to find out what is really going on in a country, and that core
skills and knowledge have been allowed to wither. No one could say
that was a picture of an office fit for service; and it is about time we
started listening.
What does “fit for service” actually entail? Our predecessor
Committee set out what the FCO depends upon in order to fulfil its
role. Firstly, it needs a corps of highly competent and motivated staff,
able to gather and analyse information from a wide range of sources
on attitudes to the UK and on threats and opportunities to the UK;
secondly, it needs to be able to command respect amongst opinionformers
in a foreign country and within international institutions, so
that it can carry influence; and thirdly, it needs an effective platform
from which to operate. The machine has to be able to operate fluently
and efficiently.
All of those elements depend, to some extent, on money. If you are
going to recruit the necessary calibre of staff, you should be able to
offer good prospects and good financial incentives. If you are going
to be respected by a host country, you will struggle if your mission
appears understaffed and underpowered by comparison to those of
other first-division countries. And an efficient machine needs regular
investment and maintenance.
Having been a Special Adviser over 20 years ago, my observation
is that the quality of staff is declining. It may be that I was more easily
impressed as a younger man, but undeniably the pressure under which
the staff work has massively increased. The Committee visits overseas
posts regularly as part of its work, and whilst we frequently enjoy the
benefit of the depth of knowledge amongst both UK-based staff and
locally engaged staff, they often seem very stretched. Diplomatic
and negotiating skills are being given greater prominence through
the Diplomatic Academy. Language skills, which were allowed to dip
to unacceptably low levels in recent years, are now showing signs
of recovering; and the network of overseas posts is still numerically
strong. But the posts are weaker: The Diplomatic Service headcount
has much reduced, particularly overseas.
The signs are overt of a department which is struggling to handle
multiple international crises and which is not taking a visible lead in
some of the key trouble spots. Germany marshalled the European
response to events in Ukraine; France is taking the initiative in
Palestine; and there is limited evidence of a distinct UK impact in the
political effort to resolve the situation in Syria. We would also like
to see the UK play more of a part in denying ISIL the funding which
sustains it.
When I became the Committee’s Chair in June 2015, the Spending
Review was looming. In our first report of the Parliament, we set out
how calamitous further cuts would be for the FCO, which had already
been stripped down, and we called for the FCO budget to be protected.
Thankfully, that recommendation was heard, and the settlement was
for funding to be maintained at existing levels in real terms. But the
FCO is going to be more constrained due to the need to make further
efficiency savings of £53 million. More significantly, the proportion of
FCO funding which is assigned to countries which qualify for Official
Development Assistance is set to climb: one witness told us that
“about 73 per cent” of FCO spending would qualify as ODA by 2020.
That suggests a serious imbalance for a Department which is likely,
for instance, to have to reinvest heavily in its bilateral representation in
Europe as a result of the vote to leave the EU.
The FCO is now facing extraordinary demands following the
referendum result. There is, as yet, no clarity about the boundaries
between the FCO and the two new Government departments, for
Exiting the EU and for International Trade. Much of the expertise
which will be needed in managing the withdrawal from the EU and
negotiating new international agreements, will have to be drawn from
the FCO; but what risks being overlooked is the huge diplomatic
effort required to signal the country’s continuing commitment
to an outward-looking, globally engaged foreign policy, and to
mitigate the reputational risk associated with withdrawal. That will
take dedication and professionalism, and the Committee believes
strongly that the Government should increase the funding available
to the FCO commensurate with the enormity of the task. Only then
can we be more confident that the FCO is truly fit for service.
92
93

politics first | Spotlight
Daniel Kawczynski
Member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham
94
Undoubtedly, the event that will have the most profound implications
on the Foreign Office’s capabilities is Brexit. As our newest top
diplomat, Boris Johnson has the job of negotiating Britain’s place
in the world. In this time of political uncertainty, the Foreign Office
must be capable of taking on a new and increased workload. However,
in order to do that, structural changes need to be made, particularly
now that there are two new departments to work alongside the Foreign
Office with the newly-established Brexit Secretary and International
Trade Secretary positions. But the overarching question in post-Brexit
Britain is: are they ready and able to tackle the jobs and issues which
will face not just Britain, but also their departments?
Refusing to show any acceptance of defeat, the government
failed to make any contingency plans for a Leave vote, something
which Philip Hammond (still Foreign Secretary at the time) defended
when he appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this
summer. Chair Crispin Blunt branded that decision as a “serious
oversight,” despite Mr Hammond’s claims that contingency plans
were not necessary. Mr Hammond later added that Britain was not
in a position to start Brexit negotiations with Brussels. The mere fact
that when Article 50 will be invoked is unknown, places enormous
responsibility in the hands of the Foreign Office; the uncertainty
surrounding Britain’s diplomatic future is a problem that they must
be equipped to deal with, especially now that they will have to do
jobs previously undertaken by the EU.
So, for example, the European Union’s negotiations of free trade
agreements with over 50 countries. Without the EU, Britain will have
to negotiate all of its FTAs independently. That is a job that, in the
short-term, may prove to be a challenging feat; in the “Implications
of the referendum on EU membership for the UK’s role in the world”
publication, released by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee before
the referendum, the Committee wrote that: “Since the UK has not
negotiated FTAs on its own behalf for over 40 years, the Government
does not currently possess the knowledge or capacity to manage such
a large-scale undertaking.” Nevertheless, the Foreign Office and the
new Department for International Trade, headed by Liam Fox, should
be completely capable to deal with that as a long-term issue.
Now that the Foreign Office must be prepared to take on a heavilyincreased
workload, the most necessary structural change is to
increase its budget. In 2014-15, the Foreign Office’s resource budget
was £1.7 billion, the fourth smallest budget of any government
department. Part of that £1.7 billion is designated as Overseas
Development Assistance in order to fulfil Britain’s commitment to
spend at least 0.7 per cent of our Gross National Income on overseas
aid. So, in practice, the Foreign Office’s budget is around £1.3
billion. That figure was arguably too small before a Brexit vote, but
it is essential for the departmental budget to increase now that they
must take on more challenging jobs. Furthermore, considering that
there are now an additional two senior ministers working closely with
the Foreign Office (David Davis and Liam Fox), a new Foreign Office
budget must be drawn up which takes into account the finances that
these two ministers and their jobs will require.
In the past, the Prime Minister has been the leading figure in
determining foreign policy and its aims and directions. Whilst that
seems likely to continue, with Theresa May taking an assertive and
dominant role in setting and directing foreign policy, “The FCO and
the 2015 Spending Review” report, published by the Foreign Affairs
Select Committee, dictated that: “The FCO needs to be equipped to reassert
its leading role in foreign policy-making.” Probably one of the
most important roles of the Foreign Office (and the senior ministers
within the department) is to negotiate Britain’s place in the world, both
within the EU and outside. Although Prime Minister May will remain as
our primary ambassador, the importance of the role of Boris Johnson
must not be understated.
The referendum’s Leave result took a majority of government
ministers and departments by surprise, and the Foreign Office’s
failure to make contingency plans for a vote to leave the EU has left
Philip Hammond’s successors with a substantial workload. There will,
undeniably, be various challenges which face Britain and the Foreign
Office in the coming years, but, ultimately, the Foreign Office is
capable of tackling these issues and is able to rely on the expertise of
Mr Johnson and within the department itself, which has helped Britain
to become the world’s second largest soft power. With representation
in 168 countries, Britain’s diplomatic network is one of the largest,
furthest-reaching in the world. Whilst short-term problems will
inevitably arise, in the long-term, Britain will remain a prominent
political force in the world.

politics first | Special Section: Cyber Crime
ADVERTORIAL
96
Legislators need to devise a strategy
to counteract cyber crime
The digital economy is an increasingly important part of the UK economy.
Our nation’s finances are boosted by around £145 billion a year from
digital technology, and the UK has the largest internet economy in the
G20. But as the digital economy grows, the opportunity for cyber-crime
increases, and the challenge to make the UK a safe place to do business
in becomes ever more important. Earlier this year, the Culture, Media
and Sport Select Committee carried out an inquiry and published a
report on the topic.
Given the importance of e-commerce to the British economy and
the prevalence of e-services, coupled with the mounting threat of cyberattacks,
companies must continually invest in cyber-defences and
ensure that they are keeping ahead of criminals and hackers. TechUK
estimates that cyber-crime costs the UK economy £34 billion a year.
According to evidence submitted to the inquiry by the Federation
of Small Businesses, a third of their members had been the subject of
cyber-crime. The recently published Cyber Security Breaches Survey
2016, commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
found that 25 per cent of companies experience a cyber-breach at least
once a month. Cyber security attacks are an inevitable part of being in
the digital economy today.
In major organisations, where the risks of attack are significant,
the person responsible for cyber-security should be fully supported
in organising realistic incident management plans and exercises.
Someone on the board needs to be ultimately accountable for cyber
security, while day-to-day responsibility should reside with someone
senior - and both should be sanctioned if the company has not taken
sufficient steps to protect itself and its customers from a cyber-attack.
Companies and other organisations need to demonstrate not just how
much they are spending to improve their security but prove that they are
spending it effectively.
Cyber Essentials, a government-backed, industry supported scheme
to help organisations protect themselves against common cyber-attacks,
sets out the technical controls organisations should have in place to
demonstrate that they are following a basic level of “good practice”. The
scheme provides a base level of readiness for the organisation to defend
itself from internet-based attacks.
Nigel
Huddleston,
a member of the Culture,
Media and Sport Select
Committee and Conservative
MP for Mid Worcestershire
Whilst Cyber Essentials provides a good check list for small and
medium-sized firms, it needs revision. It was established in 2014 and
has not been updated since then. The Government’s expectation is that
larger organisations, and those that hold large amounts of data, would
need to undertake other measures above and beyond those included in
the Cyber Essentials scheme.
The most high profile cyber-attack in recent times was on
telecommunications and internet provider TalkTalk in October of last
year, when customer names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers,
email addresses, TalkTalk account information, credit card details and/or
bank details were compromised.
Consumers are increasingly concerned about data protection and
cyber-security. According to the Institute of Customer Service, 43 per
cent are concerned that cyber-attacks might compromise their personal
information, while financial loss is the principal concern. Consumers
need to be able to identify which suppliers and retailers are implementing
effective data protection and security defences.
As Financial Fraud Action UK told the committee, as fraudsters
increasingly concentrate their attacks on customers, a major part of the
response must be through awareness-raising about how customers can
identify fraudulent approaches and protect themselves. There needs
to be a step change in consumer awareness of on-line and telephone
scams.
As we look to the future, there will be rapid technological
advancements which will increase opportunities for hostile actors.
The tools and techniques that are currently rare will be commonplace.
Cyber-crime will significantly increase and criminals will exploit those
new opportunities for fraud and theft.
We legislators need to ensure that appropriate regulatory bodies
have teeth to deal with the issue, that those who break the law can
be identified and prosecuted, and that those companies which store
consumers’ data do all that they can to protect it.
As consumers, we all need to better understand where and how our
data is stored, doing more to ensure we are only putting our data in the
hands of those who we feel can be trusted to look after it.
UK Companies, particularly SME’s,
are not ready for the legal changes
racing toward them
Data Protection (DP) keeps executives and legislators awake at night. The
sharp end of ‘Cyber Security’ (properly ‘Information Security’, because DP
encompasses much more than just ‘cyber’) is about to get tough with stiff
punishments, which are meant to hurt, for non-compliance. Companies must
retain appropriate expertise on their Board - and to police their supply chain
compliance. Regulators are increasingly taking action against individual
executives where negligence is a factor. Woe betide those who fail to ensure
the safety of data in their care.
SME’s are our engine for growth.
Information Security services to SME’s
through our affordable BeCyberSure
monthly subscription service.
Andrew Taylor
CEO of Bronzeye IBRM
020 3290 0686
On 25 May 2018, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will take
effect. On that date, the UK will probably still be a member. If we’re not out, we’re
still in. Grey areas will proliferate. There will be more opinions than lawyers. We
could easily tie ourselves into legal Gordian Knots wondering what the Information
Commissioner’s (ICO) stance will be on GDPR.
Whatever legal construct we end up with, the UK risks putting itself in a poor
regulatory position if it doesn’t adopt or replicate GDPR. The least we can expect
is an uprated Data Protection Act (DPA2.0) to make sure we stay with the pack
- otherwise we risk placing ourselves on a lower standard of governance to our
counterparts in the EU, North America and the Antipodes.
companies to know in detail their data footprint; what, where, why and what
effective purging and destruction procedures for when it is no longer extant
Most are a million miles from being able to do any of that right now.
More worrying is that most UK companies are blissfully unaware that this regulatory
tsunami is heading toward them. There is much to do, time is tight. We worry that
companies will be tempted to use the tried, tested (and failed!) parking of this
Cyber Security is an element of Information Security which is an element of Risk
Management. Risk Management must be supervised from the Board Room.
If most breaches - 95% according to IBM - have their genesis in human errors/
actions, not technology, education and training is paramount.
The general thrust of GDPR is to force all companies to address the entirety
concatenated, functional and effective governance regime.
Most at risk are the smaller companies. Less sophisticated, less well funded and
traditional cyber security vendors because they lack scale and deep pockets.
We need to get to work to prepare these companies or they won’t be ready and
that will be a disaster for the country and our small businesses.

politics first | Special Section: Cyber Crime
ADVERTORIAL
98
Interpol and the Nigerian police were delighted this July when
they arrested “Mike” – his full details were not published – who
is suspected of being the mastermind of a $60 million operation
running online scams and frauds across the world from his base in
the southern Nigerian city of Port Harcourt.
“Mike” and his gang had reportedly been hacking into and
hijacking the email systems of small businesses and using these
fake fronts to defraud individuals and other businesses out of
money; in one case as much as $15 million.
Sadly, even with Mike potentially out of the picture, cyber crime
is still big business, in the UK and elsewhere. Whereas traditional
crime rates have been falling across Western Europe for two
decades, cybercrime has expanded exponentially.
The Office for National Statistics believes there were almost six
million computer misuse and fraud offences in England and Wales in the
year to the end of March 2016, of which 3.8 million were fraud offences -
suggesting cyber-fraud is the most common type of crime.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, of which I am a
member, looked into the issue following the TalkTalk hack.
TalkTalk, one of our country’s leading telecoms and internet
providers, was the victim of a hack in October 2015, in which
around 160,000 customers’ personal and banking details were
stolen, potentially to be passed on to allow criminals to access bank
accounts or to pose as the victims and use their data elsewhere
online. TalkTalk has insufficient protection for its computer and data
systems and these were too easily defeated by the hackers.
There is also a further tricky conflict to resolve: TalkTalk was itself the
victim of a crime. But it is also responsible for the safe keeping of a huge
amount of personal data for its customers. Where does the balance lie
between treating individuals or organisations as victims, and making
them share some of the blame when an attack is successful? Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe started such a debate
this March when he suggested that customers should not be refunded
by banks if they fail to protect themselves from cybercrime. Perhaps that
should go for companies, too, who do not keep their security up-to-date?
Certainly in the case of TalkTalk, we proposed a duty to undertake
an annual audit of cyber security with a named individual – a board
director – taking the responsibility to sign that audit off in the annual
report and accounts.
Christian
Matheson,
a member of the Culture,
Media and Sport Select
Committee and Labour MP
for City of Chester
Cyber crime: the new and potent
criminal battleground
It was also clear to our committee that TalkTalk was not alone in
suffering cyber attacks. Other telecoms providers regularly have to fend
off unwanted approaches. In another inquiry, into broadband provision
in the UK, my committee was concerned at how uneasily the industry
sat together. Yet whereas vigorous commercial competition must remain
at the heart of the industry, surely in terms of security, collaboration
between providers must be promoted? I would expect telecoms providers
– and banks, and utilities and other businesses holding large amounts of
personal financial data – to share best practice with each other on how to
defend against cyber attacks. In terms of security, the competition is not
the other providers, but the criminals.
There is one other complicating factor for government to consider.
I sat on the bill committee for the Investigatory Powers Bill, which
brings in the new requirement for internet and telecoms service providers
to retain all users’ data and web browsing habits for a year.
The stipulation is to help in urgent investigations into serious crimes,
such as the disappearance of a child. But it does rather offer a plump
target to hackers and thieves and puts yet further obligations on the
internet companies to ensure that the data is held securely. And whereas
big firms like BT or Virgin may have the capacity and capability to secure
the huge amounts of data the new law will require, will smaller firms – or,
indeed, new entrants to the market – be able to cope competitively?
Indeed, the threat may not even come from external hackers. We
know that newspapers have not been averse in the past to hacking
into mobile phone voicemails or email accounts. How easy would
it be, presented with the possibility of accessing a year’s worth of
a celebrity’s internet browsing history, to pass a couple of grand in
a brown envelope to a low grade technician at an internet provider,
and have them access that internet data and download it on to a USB
memory stick for a month’s worth of stories for the paper?
As more and more of our lives are lived online, so more and more
of us will become vulnerable to online criminals. And as the ONS sadly
pointed out, online crime is replacing traditional criminal activity and is
growing apace. Cyber space is the new criminal battleground.
LEARNING ABOUT CYBER SECURITY
FROM CHEESE…
So, another Politics First issue and here we go with
another abstract article about, yes, you’ve guessed it,
cheese. Why? Because I love cheese. Any cheese.
In any form. From any country. It can be toasted, on
crackers, with salad, with chutney or just on its own. But
this article isn’t about all cheeses, we’re going to look at
one in particular - Swiss cheese.
Why? Well, you’ve obviously spotted from the title that,
at some point, we’re going to make the link between
cheese and cyber security so Swiss cheese gives us a
good starting point.
When we think of swiss cheese, we’ve been brought up
to know that Swiss cheese has holes in it. Pockets of air
created from carbon dioxide released by little bacteria
make the holes as the cheese ripens. Clearly, there’s
more to it than that but you get the gist of it.
Anyway, we all know that these holes are placed randomly
throughout the cheese and none of them line up. That
means that nothing can pass directly through these holes.
This is where we can make the link to cyber security.
Good cyber security in an organisation is like a good
Swiss cheese. Yes, there are some holes but there are
layers of policy, procedure and technology that stop these
holes lining up.
However, when something goes wrong, something
manages to slip through that’s just like all the holes in our
cheese lining up.
Lets put it in to context. Think of Organisation A.
Normally, they’re a good Swiss cheese and all their
holes are recognised but they don’t line up through their
defensive layers. Except we’re going to look at a curious
set of circumstances.
Imagine for one moment that its the school holidays
and several of the accounts staff are on holiday. Then
imagine that, for whatever reason, the skeleton cover
staff falls ill and can’t come into work. These are normal
circumstances that could hit any business.
So, in order to cover the absences, email is delegated
out to someone who’s merely “steadying the ship” until
normal service can be resumed.
Enter the bad guy.
As everyone likes to do these days, we’ll tell our email
client to automatically respond to whoever emails us and
tell them that we’re on holiday and, in our absence, who
to contact. As the bad guy does his reconnaissance, he
discovers that many are on holiday and we’ve also got one
who is off sick. The bad guy knows that he’s got someone
covering several jobs.
So, he takes a punt. Pretending to be the CEO he starts
up a dialogue with the “ship steadier” and builds some
rapport. Said “ship steadier” is extremely busy but will
always make time for the big boss - so the conversation
blossoms and information is exchanged, resulting in an
instruction to pay £25000 into a bank account. As its the
CEO who has asked and the “ship steadier” is unfamiliar
but keen to impress, the instruction is carried out and a
pat on the back from the CEO results in a job well done.
All the holes in the cheese have been lined up by clever
manipulation and a healthy bit of luck. When the mistake
is discovered, its too late. Funds have been extracted
from bank accounts and Organisation A now becomes
just another victim.
This might sound far-fetched but it happens on a regular
basis. Some organisations see this as just “the norm”.
Some organisations can’t recover from the loss. We’ve
got to become more savvy and the lead needs to come
from the top. Its time to fight back.
Stuart Green is MD of SJG Digital, a Cyber
Security Specialist servicing the UK from its
base in Lincolnshire.
SJG Digital can be contacted on
01673 898001,
www.sjgdigital.com or safer@sjgdigital.com

politics first | Special Section: Cyber Crime
Andrew
Bingham,
a member of the Culture,
Media and Sport Select
Committee and Conservative
MP for High Peak
ADVERTORIAL
Society must understand
cyber crime to effectively
tackle it
Dr. Adrian Davis, (ISC) 2 Regional Managing Director
– EMEA Region, explains to Marcus Papadopoulos
the actions required to decisively meet the menace of
cyber-crime
100
Cross-border cooperation is crucial
to confronting cyber crime
UK companies earn £1 of every £5 via the internet, and this is predicted
to grow. However, with the emergence of online crime, this raises the
question of how to approach internet security and what the Government
can do to protect UK citizens and businesses.
The internet has created new opportunities for business, education,
communication and leisure. Some surveys attribute internet use for
21 per cent of the GDP growth between 2006 and 2011 in countries
like the UK. If we are to keep using the internet, we must effectively
approach the issue of internet security.
The very nature of the internet has led to a design which lacks borders
and has no central control, leading to amorphous boundaries between
countries – private companies are free to establish international links
and route traffic in any way which is commercially viable.
That freedom has a number of benefits. So, for instance, from a
business perspective, you can establish a presence online and market
your services with little effort. People can share ideas and information
freely - no matter their origin.
A key aspect of the internet is the state of the software industry
and the very applications used across the internet. The industry, itself,
creates a challenge: that of software errors. That is highlighted by the
wide variety of applications in use, ranging from online banking, to
movie streaming and to web browsing.
Unfortunately, each piece of software has potential errors or
problems built in, known as “bugs”. Those are typically unintended
defects in the software which were accidently built in by the designer.
Despite massive investment and wealth generation that comes from
building software, bugs still exist, partly because the authors rarely face
the consequences or an economic loss for poor quality.
Unfortunately, bugs have a darker side beyond simply upsetting
the end user. They often provide a mechanism which allows malicious
people to hack or abuse the software. Hacking software can have
serious consequences; a recent example was the breach of TalkTalk’s
systems in 2015. Errors made in their software exposed 157,000 UK
customers’ personal details.
The openness of the internet, and the prevalence of software
bugs, has led to a rise in internet criminals seeking to exploit this
environment. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport reported that
online banking fraud had cost UK businesses £40 million in 2014 - and
this is increasing.
It is now a fact that a billion dollar bank heist is actually plausible
and could be carried out without the criminals ever setting foot
in the country where the crime took place in. That creates a big
problem for law enforcement: if the perpetrator can cover their tracks
and hide their identity, how do they even know which country they
are in, let alone successfully prosecute them? The cross-border law
enforcement issue is a key challenge facing Governments around
the world.
In November 2015, the then Chancellor George Osborne
announced a £1.9 billion investment in cyber security, including
the establishment of a National Cyber Security Centre. The
principle behind a single central body for managing incidents is
a sensible step, and ensuring that the new organisation has clear
responsibilities is essential for it to be successful.
Unfortunately, the role of internet security is much harder than it
sounds. As highlighted, if you have no borders, and if anyone in the
UK can be directly attacked via the internet, then you cannot throw
up border control. Instead, every company and person online needs
good internet security in place to protect them.
What a central body therefore can do is encourage investment
and improvement of online security. In the United States, a standards
body, the “National Institute for Standards and Technology”, provides
useful information for government departments, businesses and
users. Those standards help to encourage stronger security and
information sharing across the country.
Where a national strategy can also help is awareness of the
issue of internet security. Educating our children in schools is a
valid approach and one that, in the long-run, would ensure that we
have internet security literate consumers and workers within our
businesses.
Finally, the last key area is cross border collaboration. As cyber
crime continues to grow, the ability to track down the perpetrators
and bring them to justice will become more important. Building
strong links with other countries in the world to tackle such issues
through cooperation will become another key task for Britain’s
NCSC.
Q How serious a problem is cyber-crime in the UK?
Any crime is bad for society as a whole. However, cyber-crime has
a different impact in comparison to physical crime. In the cyber
world, assets are not necessarily stolen but value is. For example,
a company is attacked, data on a product is copied and then sold
to another company in the world which then produces the same
product either cheaper or quicker or, indeed, both. Now, that
damages the economy because it means that innovation is rapidly
brought to market without the costs associated with research. So
cyber-crime affects society far more as it can extensively harm
trust in how business is carried out. Further to that, the other side
of cyber-crime is that it is much more efficient than traditional
fraudulent crime; for instance, at the touch of a button, a scam
email can be sent out to tens of thousands of people, whereas
before a scam letter would have to be typed out and then sent in
the post.
Q What are the root causes of breaches in security?
Firstly, the software and systems themselves; for example, there
are, approximately, between 15 and 50 defects per one thousand
lines of code. With as many errors as that in a piece of software,
criminal programmers can find them and use them for fraudulent
purposes. So software vulnerabilities must come under the
spotlight.
Secondly, products and systems are not tested sufficiently
enough hence we do not discover the errors before a product is
put out to be used by companies or individuals.
Thirdly, people make errors. Most people think that computers
are infallible; however, if you press the wrong button, the computer
will do as you tell it to. A classic example of that concerns people
who send out emails without a thought for privacy and put
everyone’s email addresses in the ‘To’ field, instead of the ‘Bcc’
field. It is very difficult to catch that kind of human error.
And fourthly, given how many applications there are in
existence, I do not believe that most people who download them
to their PC or phone have been trained in how to use them safely.
So the skills gap is a major factor in accounting for the dramatic
rise in cyber-crime.
Q Can you explain the strategy of (ISC)2 in approaching
cyber-crime.
As an international professional body, we certify and assure
recognition for the professionals with the skills and instincts
needed to protect companies against cybercrime and other cyber
threats. We are also working hard to fill the increasingly recognised
skills shortage for those professionals. As a profession, we also
talk about prevention or stemming vulnerability, which is all about
educating innovators, systems and software designers and their
business stakeholders to think about how the product is going to
be used and to consider obvious problems within the requirements
gathering, design and development process. So, for instance,
regarding the TalkTalk case in 2015, it would appear that the initial
problem here was caused by something called “SQL injection”.
Now, an SQL injection is a very basic attack and has been known
for at least 10-15 years and can be tested for and solved very
easily. Yet in the case of TalkTalk, the problem was not found. So
until we can stem the vulnerability, until companies recognise the
prevalence of vulnerability, and the need to manage the risks they
present, we are not going to have a firm foundation to work from.
We also share our knowledge to develop digital skills across
society, which involves having as wide an awareness as possible
of the internet and the digital world, coupled with the basic
knowledge of things which should never be done when you are
engaged in this world. An example of that is if you are working in
an airport lounge, you do not write down your password and leave
it around when you leave.
Q Is there anything else which you would like to add?
We are dealing with a fast moving, constantly changing world.
Overall, we have found that people are becoming much more
conscious of cyber security. However, the problem is that the
IT industry is not yet expressing that awareness in terms which
the average member of the public can really understand. Part of
that problem is due to people still not equating cyber-crime with
physical crime. The TalkTalk case, however, is one of a growing
number of cases that has made people think that cyber-crime can
hurt them, and this growing awareness will help organisations like
(ISC)2 and its membership of certified professionals to talk about
it more. In many ways stories like the TalkTalk case have been,
ironically, a godsend as they opened the eyes of businesses and
members of the public to the scourge of cyber-crime. It’s time now
for society to heed the lessons learned.

politics first | Special Section: Cyber Crime
Lord Brian
Paddick,
Liberal Democrat Home
Affairs Spokesperson in
the House of Lords
ADVERTORIAL
The Prime Minister’s invasive and
expensive attack on our privacy
102
Whilst Theresa May fought her battle for Downing Street in front of the
TV cameras of the national media, she kept up her personal fight against
online privacy in Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Bill has been
slowly moving through the House of Lords over the Summer. It is a much
needed piece of legislation which updates the laws our security services
use to deal with the realities of the modern, digital, world. Unfortunately,
as it currently stands, it completely fails to fulfil this aim and, instead,
acts as an authoritarian and overreaching power grab.
In the Lords, as they did in the Commons, Labour, lacking the fight
to offer any real opposition, are making backroom deals which see most
of the Bill pass unopposed. The Liberal Democrats will still make a
stand, fighting for changes to the Government’s ability to hold on to our
web histories, fighting to protect journalists’ sources, fighting to protect
communications between lawyers and their clients, and fighting for
legislation which is both necessary and proportionate.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the vital role that the police and the
security services play in keeping us safe. We also recognise the need
for trust between state agencies and the public, not least to ensure the
flow of community intelligence - even more vital as the terrorist threat
changes in nature and criminals become more sophisticated.
In order to be effective, the police and the security services need
to have powers to carry out surveillance, including the interception of
communications, the retention and acquisition of “who called who,
when and where” data and even being able to hack into mobile phones
and computers of drug dealers and terrorists. That will involve intrusion
into people’s privacy, but unless there is no other practical means of
achieving the objective, intrusion into innocent people’s privacy should
not be allowed, and even then it should be subject to the highest levels
of scrutiny.
The major bone of contention for Liberal Democrats is allowing
the Government to hold on to everyone’s web history. Everything that
every innocent citizen searched for, no matter how personal, no matter
how mundane, no matter how far outside Government interest it is,
Government agencies, including the police, can crawl all over it on the
basis of mere suspicion and without a warrant.
If they had existed in the past, those rules would have hurt me
personally. Twenty-five years ago, when I was married to my wife, Mary,
I believed I was gay. Should I have been able to keep that situation
private? What if someone today was in that position and wanted to
research using the internet to get some help and guidance, for fear of
talking to anyone and letting the cat out of the bag? That is just one
example where “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”
is not the same as “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing
to worry about.” There have been numerous examples of the police
wrongly disclosing sensitive personal information in the past and these
vast oceans of data could easily be hacked, even by journalists.
But it is not just that unprecedented intrusion which makes retaining
everyone’s web histories a bad move - they simply will not work in
practice. At least one other country has tried to do the same thing and
failed. They can easily be evaded by taking the simplest of precautions
and they could cost millions of pounds in set-up costs alone. Even if
the provisions get through Parliament, they are likely to be struck down
by our courts eventually, who will likely view them as disproportionate.
The big question is how much money will the government have wasted
before they are sent back to the drawing board?
The security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have said that they do not
need internet connection records because they can get the information
they need by other means. You do not need internet connection records
to defeat serious crime or terrorism.
We need reform of our surveillance laws; we need to build a legal
framework which works with modern threats that are often plotted online.
But we must build systems which work. Legislation must be capable
of being implemented by the security services who we are asking to
operate under it. What is being put together by this under-opposed
Government does not meet what is demanded of it. Our society will be
worse off, not better protected.

politics first | Features
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Puppy farming: how to end this
terrible form of animal abuse
South Korea’s bloody shame:
its dog meat industry
Marc
Abraham
BVM&S
MRCVS,
Television Vet and
Founder of PupAid
© Sarah Bardsley
Peter
Egan,
a Patron of the
All-Party Parliament
Group for Animal
Welfare and a
former star of
Downton Abbey
© Maria Slough photography
Puppy farming usually refers to volume breeding of dogs where profit
is prioritised over welfare. It commonly relies on networks of sellers
and dealers - licensed pet shops, high street, private dwellings and
online advertisers - designed to ensure prospective puppy buyers
never see the environment which their pup was born in. That is a
perfectly legal practice whereby the breeding conditions and
transportation methods of pups to their point of sale are often far
below adequate. Unsurprisingly, that is not only detrimental to the
puppy’s health – both mentally and physically - but also the welfare
of its parents, and, of course, the new owner.
Countless studies, overwhelming scientific evidence and data, as
well as professional advice from vets, including the British Veterinary
Association, together with canine behaviourists, all support Government
advice for buyers to “always see the puppy with its mother.”
So why then, in 2016, when we know so much about the complex
emotional needs of the developing puppy do we still have legislation
which allows, even encourages, puppies to be sold away from their
mums (the third party puppy trade)? Furthermore, in 2014, when
my own e-petition to ban third party puppy sales was debated in the
House of Commons, there was unanimous support from MPs across
the political divide attending.
Two years on - meeting with MPs in Portcullis House almost
every week – I have learned much about how Parliament works. As
a practicing veterinary surgeon, with no background in politics, it
continues to be an incredible learning curve and I am surprised at
some of the truths which I am uncovering.
It is no secret that Government listens to advice and direction
of certain individuals and organisations within sectors needing
improvement. Whilst some of those organisations support a ban,
others remain immovable, clearly failing to understand that the third
party puppy trade is the reason that the cruel puppy farming industry
in the UK and abroad continues to flourish.
Astonishingly, opponents of a ban argue that the trade would go
underground! That unsubstantiated scaremongering has no basis in
fact or evidence. Our research shows that puppy buyers genuinely
aspire to making ethical and responsible choices (The Great British
Puppy Survey 2016 Findings) and, ultimately, want to buy healthy,
happy family companions. The public does not, and would not,
actively seek out irresponsible or illegal puppy sellers.
The truth is that the very reason people are duped today by
unscrupulous sellers is that two pieces of archaic law permit this to
happen - 1951 Pet Animals Act and Breeding and Sale of Dogs Act
1999 - all while enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is so
shamefully lacking.
Warnings of “fake mums” is yet another attempt to scaremonger,
rather than educate; it is not rocket science to know that a “show
bitch” placed with pups who are not hers will react very differently
than with their real mum.
So what other reason could there be for an organisation to oppose
a ban? Could, for example, a charity be concerned about a potential
restriction on their capacity to sell puppies for an adoption fee? One
would hope not, especially as an exemption for charities can easily
be added to legislation.
While some continue to go down a ‘licensing will solve
everything’ route, the truth is that lack of accountability is a primary
failing of the current licensing system. Anyone selling puppies as
family companions should have a legal duty to ensure, as far as
possible, that animals they produce are fit for that purpose. There
is no way that selling puppies through a third party can ever meet
that objective because it has an inherently negative impact on their
welfare which can never be neutralised by further regulation.
Welfare, traceability and accountability is most effectively
achieved by maintaining the shortest possible puppy supply chain
- direct from breeder to consumer. So, as part of a wider strategy,
one of the simplest solutions would be to actually open puppy farms
to the public, making their operations transparent. Let our animalloving
public scrutinise those establishments up close and personal
throughout the year, instead of a once-yearly local authority
licensing inspection where things are cleaned up for a day. If these
places have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
If stakeholders and legislators are genuinely serious about
ending the canine and human misery that results from low welfare
breeding practices and puppy dealing, then prohibiting the sale of
puppies by third party sellers is the only realistic way forward, so
that buyers can only purchase a pup that has been seen interacting
with its mum, or, better still, adopt from rescue, instead.
My involvement with animal welfare has changed my life completely.
Thirty years ago, I was, like many animal lovers, completely oblivious
to the continual cruelty imposed on the animal kingdom by the most
destructive predator on our planet: the human species.
The destruction that the human species inflicts on animals is
extraordinary - and all because we feel we have the right to do so. Either
because we get fun from killing them or because we believe they have
a place on our plate, or that boiling, beating and condensing them into
a liquid and then swallowing their lives in this form will improve our
sex performance or strengthen our wobbly joints. The lives of animals
belong to us and we can do with them as we please. We are shocking in
our ability to allow those appalling practices to happen.
An example of that is South Korea, where they have let one of the
planet’s greatest companion animals be reduced to nothing more than a
piece of meat – and I am talking about South Korea’s dog meat industry.
South Korea is the only country in the world known to have
established intensive dog breeding farms throughout the peninsula
to supply the demand for dog meat and associated products,
ranging from small backyard enterprises housing approximately
20 dogs, to large-scale facilities housing thousands of dogs. The
conditions on those farms are pitiful, and throughout their short
lives, the dogs are never shown anything but brutality, and an
absolute indifference to their sentience.
Further compounding the issue in South Korea is the dual perception
of dogs that has emerged, where there is a widely held view that there are
two ‘types’ of dogs: meat dogs, consisting of the tosa mix and yellow
dogs, for human consumption, and pet dogs, consisting of breeds of
dogs (such as labradors, poodles and huskies), for companionship.
Those categorised as meat dogs are widely perceived to be dirty,
stupid and soulless in South Korea. That perception has resulted in them
being considered and treated with little consideration, protection or
value. The view is reflected in legislation and by the attitudes of industry,
public and government, and continues to secure support for the dog
meat industry even by those who do not eat dog meat themselves.
However, the reality is that the pet dog and meat dog industries are
one and the same, and, ultimately, the fate of any dog in South Korea
depends on where the greatest profits can be made, and it is common
to see many different breeds of dogs at markets and on dog farms, often
still wearing collars, a sign of their former status as a pet dog.
The dog meat industry is largely seasonal in South Korea, and
dog meat is particularly popular during the summer months and over
the boknal days - the three hottest days of the lunar calendar - when
bosintang (invigorating soup) is favoured, as it is believed to improve
stamina and virility during the hot and humid summer months. During
those months - late May to August – approximately 80 per cent of dog
meat is consumed, even by those who never eat dog meat at any other
time of the year. Live dogs and dog meat are sold in markets throughout
South Korea, and boshintang (invigorating soup) is served in over
3,500 restaurants nationwide. Gaesoju (dog tonic) is sold in boshinwon
(nutritional or body health shops) throughout the peninsula, and, like
bosintang, is widely-believed to hold medicinal properties
It is estimated that 2.5-3 million dogs were slaughtered for
human consumption in South Korea in 2014, raised on one of over
17,000 farms located throughout the country, and supplemented
from the pet and fighting dog industries.
Regardless of their origin or breed, the cruelty of the industry is the
same. The dogs are usually kept in small, barren cages, with little or no
protection from South Korea’s sweltering summers or freezing winters,
isolated in battery cages or caged in small groups, sometimes tethered.
The dogs are usually fed the dismembered parts of other animals and
human food waste, with evidence of some farmers feeding dead dogs
to live dogs. Their existence is one of fear, boredom, frustration, hunger
and disease. Veterinary care is non-existent, with farmers resorting to the
indiscriminate misuse of antibiotics and other drugs to keep the dogs
alive long enough to reach market value.
There is to be a debate at Westminster Hall on Monday September
12 th . It will be led by Oliver Dowden MP, with the motion being: “That
this house has considered e-petition 120702 relating to South Korea
and the dog meat trade.”
With the Winter Olympics taking place in South Korea in 2018, I
urge every MP, who has a shred of compassion in them, to attend that
debate and hear the facts about a trade which shames a great nation
like South Korea and betrays those wonderful Koreans who want no
part of this disgusting trade.
I am proud to be a Patron of the All-Party Parliament Group for
Animal Welfare, and I look forward to attending the debate. I hope to
see you there.
104
105

politics first | Features
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
106
Scotland: an enduring global
brand with added spirit
Malcolm
Roughead
OBE,
Chief Executive,
VisitScotland
Tourism is more than a holiday experience – it creates jobs,
sustains communities and provides an international shop
window for Scotland.
Our industry also supports other important business sectors,
including food and drink, textiles, retail and construction. We
provide a ripple effect that is helping those, and many other
sectors, flourish, and this is why VisitScotland strives to keep
Scotland, as a destination, out in front of our competitors.
VisitScotland’s first ever global campaign, “The Spirit of
Scotland”, was launched by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon this
February, at Edinburgh Castle.
The campaign is part of a series of initiatives that is
fundamentally changing the way in which we market and
present Scotland around the world, designed to deliver benefits
way beyond traditional tourism sectors. It is about building
on the strong image Scotland already has and the reputation
for the success we built in 2014, when we delivered The
Commonwealth Games and The Ryder Cup.
By engaging more than 130,000 people through #ScotSpirit,
the social media element of our campaign, VisitScotland is taking
Scotland to the world in a way not seen before, encouraging
people from around the world to post digital content that shows
their #ScotSpirit and, in doing so, help us excite people about
Scotland and encourage them to visit.
We have now extended that with a new online community
platform, which is creating opportunities for more people
- Scots and visitors, alike - to share their experiences of our
country, exchanging knowledge in a way not possible before.
Through their phones, tablets and laptops, they are working with
us to help promote Scotland to millions of people around the
world.
Our ultimate aim is to create as many advocates for Scotland
as we can in order to broaden our reach and sphere of influence
in a world where the way that visitors are researching and
booking their trips is changing at an ever-increasing pace.
The confidence and faith in Scotland as a brand and as a
leading visitor destination is highlighted by the international
partners we are working with. TripAdvisor, Google, NBC, The
New York Times - to name but a few - all see the potential of the
country and the draw it has for millions of visitors who come
here each year.
The tourism industry has undoubted potential as an engine
of economic growth. The industry in Scotland continues to
outperform the rest of the economy and our neighbours in the
UK but if we are to realise our full potential, we must pull our
collective assets in the public sector, the private sector and our
globally recognised point of difference, our own people, if we
are to succeed.
By bringing people and digital media together, we are doing
just that.
Spending by tourists in Scotland generates around £12
billion of economic activity in the wider Scottish supply chain,
while the industry supports almost 200,000 jobs. VisitScotland
is committed to extending that success story and ensuring our
industry goes from strength-to-strength. By working closely
with partners, we are delivering for Scotland.
Accelerating growth
in the UK economy
Don Spalinger, Director, Research
and Innovation Services, University
of Southampton, tells Marcus
Papadopoulos about the groundbreaking
achievements which he has overseen in
the field of entrepreneurism
Q Congratulations on having been selected as one of the “100 Faces of the
UK’s Vibrant Economy”! How do you feel about that?
Yes, I am really honoured to be recognised for creating innovative and entrepreneurial
ways for shaping the vibrant UK economy. The amazing accomplishments of the
SETsquared Partnership (a partnership of the commercialisation activities at the
universities of Southampton, Surrey, Bristol, Bath and Exeter) over the past decade,
and its future promise, in driving the growth of the UK economy, provide evidence that
universities working collaboratively with industry are an engine for economic growth.
So I want to thank Grant Thornton for highlighting activities which are shaping the
vibrant economy.
Q What are some of the SETsquared Partnership’s accomplishments?
Entrepreneurism and enterprise are at the heart of what SETsquared is all about.
University research labs are great at creating new knowledge. SETsquared is
committed to exploiting that knowledge to the betterment of society and the economy.
One way of doing that is the creation of new companies, and SETsquared’s incubation
and business acceleration activities have incubated over 1,000 companies – having
assisted these companies in raising over £1 billion of investment - and contributed to
over £4 billion in GVA to the UK economy. That has led to SETsquared ranking as the
number one university business incubator in the world by UBI Global.
And we are continuing to embed entrepreneurism and enterprise in universities with
our new ICURe program. We have been piloting the Innovation and Commercialisation
of University Research (ICURe) program for only 18 months, but the outcomes are
already amazing us. Teams from 78 research groups at 15 universities across the UK
have completed the programme which gets the teams out of the research labs and into
the marketplace - talking to potential users, customers, partners, and competitors; and
validating that there are commercial uses of their research outputs. Already, 28 new
spin-out companies have been formed. Over 30 licenses are in process or granted.
And the ICURe teams have raised over £15 million of funding to either finance the
company creation or fund further research, usually in collaboration with commercial
partners found through the ICURe process. The ICURe pilot has received funding
from HEFCE and InnovateUK, and we are endeavouring to raise additional funding to
continue the pilot, expanding ICURe to additional universities, research activities and
validation processes.
Q Can you cite me some companies which are coming out of ICURe?
Accelercomm is spinning out from Southampton, having created a turbo-decoder
capable of 10 times improvement to data rates and latency, which will enable smart
devices to operate at the forthcoming 5G technology level.
Ziylo is a spin-out from Bristol, based on technology for continuously monitoring
sugars in solution. The technology was initially developed to monitor blood sugar
levels in diabetics, but during the ICURe market validation, a near term and burning
market need was identified in the brewing and winemaking industry. Prototypes are
being fabricated for deployment, and sales will be generated very soon.
SETsquared and ICURe won the THELMA (Times Higher Education Leadership and
Management Award) for Knowledge Exchange/Transfer in 2016, also recognizing the
rapid impact being realized across the UK.
ICURe and SETsquared are accelerating the commercialisation of university
research that will generate billions of pounds for the UK economy.
107

politics first | Interviews
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
Delivering aid
to all humanity
Taking action to counter
women’s risk issues
Imran Madden, UK Director
of Islamic Relief, tells
Marcus Papadopoulos
about the work of his charity
and the role it plays in
delivering humanitarian
aid in hard to reach areas
Q What does the work of Islamic Relief UK involve?
Islamic Relief is an international aid agency founded and based in the UK, and the biggest independent
Muslim charity in the world. The generous support we receive means that, generally speaking, we have
around £150 million per year to spend on emergency aid and poverty alleviation. The work we do is inspired
by our Islamic values of social justice, compassion and environmental custodianship but also by core
humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. Our programmes are a combination
of humanitarian response and resilience work and long-term development projects. We assist people of all
faiths and none – people in need are the people who count, irrespective of race or religion.
We understand conflict zones well from our long experience delivering aid in difficult and dangerous
situations in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and countries like Afghanistan. While Islamic Relief is, of
course, a Muslim organisation, we have many non-Muslims working for us. We are free from government
control and sectarianism, and we work very hard to deliver aid to any people who we deem require it.
During the Bosnian civil-war, for example, we helped the Serbian community in Sarajevo, while in Iraq we
assist Christians and Yazidis affected by the conflict, as well as both Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Islamic Relief has field offices in 34 countries and some of these are non-Muslim countries, such as
the Philippines and Nepal. So we are dedicated, in principle and operationally, to helping people in need
anywhere in the world. And we have worked with Christian charities, such as Christian Aid and CAFOD, to
help to achieve that; for instance, during the Ebola response in Sierra Leone.
Q How is money raised?
We raise money through appeals to the public and approaches to institutional donors such as DFID and
UN bodies. We appeal via direct mail and email, community events and social media, as well as some TV
and print advertising. Over 40 per cent of donations are online, and we work closely with Google as one of
a handful of favoured charity partners.
Of the money we raise, 90 per cent goes straight to supporting the communities we serve, with the
remaining 10 per cent going towards overheads, campaigning for change and fundraising costs. So we
very much pride ourselves on being a value-for-money charity.
Q Do you work with UK parliamentarians?
Indeed, we do – and quite extensively. We are just about to publish a report on the challenges facing
Syrian refugee women, and will take a cross-party delegation to Lebanon to meet some of those affected.
Since the refugee crisis engulfed Europe last year, we have taken Mary Creagh to Lebanon, Andrew
Mitchell and Clare Short to Turkey (with the Muslim Charities Forum), Diane Abbott to Somaliland and we
hosted Tim Farron on the Greek island of Lesbos. As a result of those trips, these MPs have all spoken to
the media about their experiences, with some giving evidence before select committees and others asking
parliamentary questions to raise awareness and press for government action.
Islamic Relief engages MPs on our issues of focus, such as climate change, disaster response, refugees
and gender. Incidentally, we are a member of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and, currently,
the only Muslim faith-based NGO among their membership.
One specific point that we have been lobbying on recently is the negative impact of some counterterrorism
measures on aid distribution – particularly in conflict zones. Muslim charities could do a better
job of getting aid through if the regulations were not so restrictive – something that is really tough for all
kinds of charities, not just Muslim ones. Transferring money is one particular impediment. Saving lives
is about rapid intervention and charities need to be able to transfer money quickly, so banking restrictions
need to be reassessed. Refreshingly, parliament appears to be reviewing the situation and a government-
NGO working group will shortly be convened to explore concerns and identify solutions on the impact of
regulation and banking practices on NGO operations.
Q Finally, will Brexit have any effect on your work?
I think it would be naive to say that Brexit will not have any impact on the work of Islamic Relief. If and
when Brexit is implemented, a number of links that we currently have will be affected, especially with the
European Union as many of the humanitarian funds come from Brussels and, of course, Europe is where
many of the refugees are. I think it is fair to say that most aid agencies would prefer the UK to continue to
maintain its strong links with Europe, something that can only benefit all humanity.
Sian Fisher, Chief Executive Officer of
the Chartered Insurance Institute, explains
to Marcus Papadopoulos how a new
programme will aim to achieve gender
parity within the insurance profession
Q What is Insuring Women’s Futures?
In March this year, the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII), the professional standards
body for insurance, established Insuring Women’s Futures (IWF), a programme of
change. Its purpose is to lead the insurance profession in refining its approach to
women and risk; specifically, how the profession may improve insurance solutions and
services to enhance women’s risk resilience in wider society, and how it may develop
in a gender balanced way enhancing career opportunities for women in the profession.
Q What are IWF’s aims?
IWF aims are to: better understand the risks women face in life, and their experience
of insurance and protection products and services in managing their risk exposures,
and in empowering themselves; improve the way the profession engages with women
from a business perspective, both as personal and professional buyers, through product
design, service delivery, marketing and education; and progress gender parity within
the profession itself, creating a more inclusive culture and business environment for
employees, customers and clients.
Q What is the rationale behind IWF?
The UK insurance profession contributes £29 billion to GDP, protecting over 20 million
households. Women represent just over half of the UK population, and yet research
indicates women’s access to, and use of, insurance and financial protection is limited.
That is at a time when, in today’s society, women are exposed to an array of risks distinct
from men; for example, health, life expectancy, their role as carers and working parents,
and as a consequence of financial dependence on family or partners. Furthermore, the
evolving demographic of women in society, and hence their needs and expectations
as consumers, and increasingly as professional buyers of insurance, creates the
imperative to tackle this issue from a societal as well as a business perspective. IWF
seeks to better understand women’s risks in life, both now and in the future, and the role
of insurance protection and long-term savings in solving and mitigating these, having
regard to product, distribution/sales, marketing, education and awareness. The initial
focus will be in the UK, with scope for a wider global reach.
Q How are you going to achieve your aims?
Considerable research has been undertaken highlighting women’s risk issues by
various organisations seeking to influence government policy and societal structures,
and also by the profession. IWF will engage with external organisations and experts on
women’s risks, to consolidate these insights through an insurance lens, and to develop
the profession’s response to women’s risk solutions. The focus, initially, will be on UK
personal protection insurance, life, pensions and long-term savings for women. IWF
will develop channels with external organisations, and through media, to profile women,
risk and insurance to a broader societal audience.
Q What are the next steps for IWF?
Having secured support from both inside and outside the world of insurance for IWF,
we are working with UN Women in support of the global HeForShe campaign. We
are launching, this September, a drive to encourage the entire profession to make
public personal commitments to advancing gender equality. We are also working on a
report that will look at the risks faced by women and how the insurance responds at the
moment. That will be launched later in the year.
108
109

politics first | Book Review
110
Arise,
Europe
The Uprising of
European Peoples
by Bogdana Koljevic
and Diego Fusaro
Filip Visnjic Press
The word crisis receives its meaning from medicine; it is a point in the course of a disease
when the patient either descends to death or returns to health.
In their book, Bogdana Koljevic and Diego Fusaro approach crisis with cautious joy. But also
with careful awareness of the “morbid symptoms” we are bound to experience as we struggle to
bring a new world into existence, attempting to prevent complete descent into new barbarism. It
is not just about the crisis of the European Union but, more importantly, the crisis of the very idea
of politics - an “integral de-politicisation of the world” and of European civilization.
Koljevic and Fusaro share the insight of the great Hungarian economist Karl Polanyi about
the unprecedented rupture brought about by the institution of capitalism: the domination of
society by the economy in the form of exchange value. They offer an explosive and convincing
critique, while lunging into a fiercely compelling attack on the pretensions of liberal democracy,
responsible for the destruction of collective imagination. Koljevic and Fusaro’s inspired criticism
of neoliberal quantification, mechanisation and dissolution of social bonds, draws its inspiration
from the rich source of European emancipatory traditions from the left, as well as from the right.
The originality of the book lies in the way the authors put the arguments and themes of the
contemporary melancholic despair of civilization to work in service of an insightful political
perspective. They are persuaded that the current crisis constitutes a historic turning-point.
It is manifested in a variety of “morbid symptoms,” which include the institution of the EU,
neoliberalism as a form of conservative utopia, and absolute capitalism, detached from any
ethical consideration or socio-economic breaks. In order to recover our health, to see that day
when the expropriators will be expropriated, we need to build a movement which breaks not only
with liberal superficiality and consumerist banality, but also represents a much greater danger
to the pseudo-elites of Europe.
According to Koljevic and Fusaro, the modern European project is anything but European; rather,
it is a colonising project of the Americanised political imagination - defined by a depoliticised
economy emptied of culture - concealed by the utopia of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism should
not be perceived as a solely economic phenomenon. It is, first and foremost, a political project,
whose conservative utopian character resides in stubborn denial of any other structure of
political authority. For the authors, that conservative utopia needs to be replaced by a social
ideal legitimately opposed to the existing state of affairs, a utopia that is a political as much as
a metaphysical form of oppositional reality. What the conservative utopia conceals is hidden in
plain sight: the rise of new technocratic elite, the specific form of power embodied institutionally
in the EU, and a new configuration of popular struggle. The consensus of new elites contributes
to rapid and unpredictable radicalization of the “extreme” political tendencies. That process is
particularly evident in the south of Europe (the Balkans and the Mediterranean), located by the
authors both as the “weak link” in the chain of German colonialism and as the primary locus of
resistance to Eurocratic structural violence. New continental struggle for another Europe could
take a form of transnational strikes and mass assembly movements, or the form of demands for
national sovereignty and democratic sovereignty of economy.
The originality of Koljevic and Fusaro’s argument lies in their proposed synthesis which
aspires to unite apparently opposed ideological projects. The strength of their proposal is
their active hope in the productive encounter of European liberatory traditions. That is a
synthesis of a different order: it traverses the right and left without either opposing them
or identifying with them.
Koljevic and Fusaro invite us to revisit Karl Marx’s concept of true democracy, one of
the more neglected parts of his rich thought. Their reading of Marx’s critique of Hegel’s
Rechtphilosophie leads them to recognise collective self-determination as the principal
argument in politics. In erudite dialogue with philosophers and theorists of “real democracy”,
they identify the indissolubility of the concepts of popular rule and active processes of
popular subjectification. In equal measure, the New European idea should draw the heart
of its articulation from those enlightened expressions of the European right, conscious of
national sovereignty, economic equality and national identity.
The Uprising of European Peoples is a magnificent examination of the crises which Europe
is facing today. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political theory, European
politics, neoliberalism and its European discontents. The book makes a significant contribution
to our understanding of European politics. I believe that both academics and activists will find it
a clear and excellent book to read on what is, after all, a complex topic.
Andrej Grubacic

ADVERTORIAL
ADVERTORIAL
September / October 2016 | www.politicsfirst.org.uk
The Digital Transformation of Public
Services will fail unless Cyber Security
is at its core
JC Gaillard
Managing Director
Corix Partners
Corix Partners is a Boutique
Management Consultancy
Firm focused on assisting
CIOs and other C-level
executives in resolving Cyber
Security Strategy, Organisation
& Governance challenges.
In July 2015, Corix Partners co-sponsored an Open Forum event
in London around the theme “Digital Public Services: Rethinking,
reshaping and rewiring services”. For us, having worked all of our
lives for and within the private sector, it was a discovery exercise –
aimed at getting an understanding of some of the dynamics within the
public sector, essentially around our niche consulting area which is
focused on Cyber Security Strategy, Organisation & Governance.
From our perspective, any definition of “digital public service” was always going
to have the Internet as its engine – together with the vast proportion of citizens
connected to it through a growing variety of devices. The Internet cannot be seen
as a neutral media. It is a hostile environment where countless virulent threats
are active – and there can be no digital public service of any kind without a
strong cyber security. So we were expecting cyber security to have a degree of
prominence in the debates.
The fact that cyber security was hardly mentioned at all by any of the speakers
on the day was a very concerning factor for us and it seems to conflict heavily
with the message central government is driving. It left us asking ourselves where
cyber security genuinely fits in the agenda and in the mindsets of public sector IT
leaders.
Since then, we have observed similar attitudes very often, online, on social media
and elsewhere.
For example, the 2015 SOCITM annual conference, the leading public sector ICT
event in the UK, did not have any session dedicated directly to cyber security
across its 2 days, and its 2016 edition is apparently planning to dedicate only
15 minutes to the topic (pending confirmation of the content of some keynote
speeches and breakout sessions).
This is very hard to reconcile with the message coming from government leaders:
Because of the sensitivity of what it does and its level of threats exposure, the
public sector must lead the way at all levels on cyber security.
Cyber security cannot be taken for granted. It should not be seen as a low level
technical problem, or another layer of technical “nuts and bolts” required to tick
boxes mandated from above. It cannot be treated like something of extreme
complexity that has to be left to the intelligence community, or seen a “necessary
evil” that is at odds with functionality.
Cyber security must be at the heart of the public sector IT agenda and must be
seen as a necessary barrier against real and active threats. It needs to be actively
implemented at people, process and technology levels. It needs to be embedded
in the mindset of all parts of the public sector for digitalisation to work.
Otherwise, cyber threats can and will derail the digital agenda. The citizens’ trust in
digital public services would be badly damaged by the type of aggressive media
coverage that surrounded the TalkTalk data breach in October 2015, and this may
be irrecoverable.
Change in that space is very highly vulnerable to ambiguity: It starts with a clear
vision coming from the top that must be relayed without fail at all levels. All actors
in the public sector digital transformation sphere must place cyber security at
the heart of each and every public communication they make. Those who think
it might “scare people” are just in denial about the reality of the threats and the
impact they can have. It is only at this price that the digital transformation will be
successful at the pace the Government is marking.
CONSULTING COPERNICUS
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance polymath who argued
against the ancient vision of the earth as centre of the universe,
and professed instead that earth and other planets orbit the sun.
Copernicus’ work shifted the human gaze outwards toward distant
stars and sparked a paradigm shift that transformed Europe.
Centuries later, the Copernicus earth observation programme is a
constellation of satellites and a host of sensors anchored to ships,
moored to buoys and borne aloft on balloons. A net of Copernican
eyes now wreathes the earth, collecting data on the earth’s climate
and atmosphere. Copernicus provides governments, industry, and
agencies with free access to climate data. The European Union
expects its open data strategy to deliver a €40 billion annual boost
to the European economy 1 , and Copernicus contributes its wealth
of data to this capital. By providing accurate, timely and open
data Copernicus aims to spark a sea change in the way decision
makers predict and influence the earth’s climate.
Copernicus provides data to users through a selection of services.
Examples include the Copernicus Climate Change Service
(C3S) and the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, both
managed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts. C3S utilizes Copernican data and a century of
instrumental records to monitor and predict the earth’s changing
climate. C3S provides records of rising temperatures and rising
seas; of shifting rainfall, gnawing drought, and dwindling ice. C3S
is an authoritative source of climate information in Europe which
enhances national investments and complements national climate
services.
Silke Zollinger, Press and Events Manager
Copernicus Communication, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
silke.zollinger@ecmwf.int | Tel: +44 (0)118 9499 778
Web: atmosphere.copernicus.eu | climate.copernicus.eu ecmwf.int |copernicus.eu
Demonstrator projects called Sectoral Information Systems (SIS)
bring climate scientists, consultants, and policymakers together to
explore applications of open climate data in industry. The SIS provide
tailored climate information that helps decision makers prepare for,
respond, mitigate and adapt to climate change.
Consultants and agencies interface between the Sectoral Information
Systems and managers and policymakers. Consultants add value to
Copernicus’ data, transforming climate information into knowledge
that enables management of resources at local and national scales.
In turn, the SIS provide economic opportunities, nurture networks,
and share experience among consultancies.
Climate change and severe weather heed no national borders,
threatening the socioeconomic structure of Europe. Science,
industry and policy must collaborate to mitigate the emissions that
drive climate change and adapt society to changes that are already
inevitable. We must now choose between an unsustainable and
increasingly grim future and a revolution in resilience and green
growth. Copernicus, CAMS, C3S and the Sectoral Information
Systems support this essential sea change.
Where once Nicolaus Copernicus suggested humans look outwards
from the earth, the Copernicus earth observation programme now
turns the human gaze back onto our own planet. As Copernicus
theorized that the earth and other planets orbit the sun, humans
were earthbound. We now have eyes in space, and the planet is
entwined in a network of Copernican sensors. From space, from our
rising seas and from our voracious deserts, Copernicus seeks to
help us understand our changing climate.
1
“Digital Agenda: Turning government data into gold,” European Commission press release, 12th December 2011.
Copernicus, a European Union Programme for a new European Climate Economy.

Wednesday 7th September will be an important day for me for two
reasons. Firstly, it is the Opening Ceremony of the Paralympics in Rio.
London 2012 transformed so many people’s perception of disability
sport, and made household names of David Weir and Ellie Simmonds
amongst many others. And although I will be attending the Rio Games as
a commentator, as opposed to a competitor, my pride and excitement at
being associated with that wonderful event will be undiminished.
It will also be National Fitness Day in the UK on Wednesday 7th
September, and I am the proud Chair of the not-for-profit health body
ukactive, which campaigns to get more people, more active, more
often. ukactive has been working with its 4000 members and partners
to provide free events and taster sessions across the country, aiming to
make the day the most active in the calendar year.
Are those two events connected, beyond my own association? I
believe that they are.
Britain will, no doubt, have a number of new heroes returning
home following the completion of both the Olympics and Paralympics,
champions who we have cheered on, celebrated, and been inspired by.
So what happens now, once the show is over?
Many, many people grappled, and are still grappling, with the
question of legacy since our own games in 2012. As someone who
has been part of many of those discussions, there has definitely been
positive news in the last 12 months. The Government’s recent Sports
Strategy, complemented by Sport England’s own plans, has begun
to map out a new direction of travel. Much praise for that must go to
Tracey Crouch in having the courage to forge a new path and saying
the status quo is not acceptable any more.
She, like Sport England, like Simon Stevens at the NHS, like ukactive
and many other organisations, are now on the same page. We must
get this nation moving again. We must become more active.
The cost of not addressing inactivity is staggering, both economically
and socially. Every year, 37,000 people die from conditions which could
be prevented, an unacceptable number. The cost of physical inactivity
to the UK economy is estimated to be £20 billion a year. In challenging
economic times, can we afford this? Can we allow the NHS to be
placed under this unrelenting pressure?
How do we address that? The inspiration from our new Olympic
and Paralympic champions will help. The new strategic plans will help.
Events and campaigns like National Fitness Day will help.
But what we really need is greater than those individual moments. It
is a cultural shift. That cultural shift - to embed activity into our everyday
lives - will require radical and bold decisions which will debate and
challenge the current approach to physical activity across all ages.
Why an active
future is our only
option
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson
That is of particular importance for children’s activity levels
which is something I care passionately about. As a mother and a
parliamentarian who has worked closely with the children’s activity
agenda in the UK, we cannot continue to just focus on the size of a
child’s waists when it is the health of their hearts that is equally, if not
more, important.
As potentially the first generation whose life expectancy is shorter
than ours, the decisions we make now are critical. Today’s inactive
child is tomorrow’s inactive adult, unless we act. That is why the
recently published Childhood Obesity Strategy is so important. In
implementing it, we must address children’s diet and activity together,
with equal status, and create a compelling vision for how to address
childhood inactivity.
Furthermore, we must get serious about understanding the physical
activity levels of our children. Without robust evaluation, we do not have
a clear idea of who needs help or who needs the right intervention. The
welcome role of Ofsted will be crucial in realising that outcome and
ukactive looks forward to working with the body to maximise its impact.
I passionately believe that developing an active lifestyle should be
just as important as learning English, Mathematics and Science, as it is
an essential component of a child’s development and their mental and
physical wellbeing. That is why I will continue to champion the concept
of measuring children’s fitness levels. Without that key data, it is not
possible to measure the impact of new strategies or set benchmarks.
That type of data is vital for making any evidence-based decisions;
yet decisions as important as improving the health and wellbeing of
children are being taken without this support and guidance.
The new Childhood Obesity Strategy must also address support for
families. In many ways, the challenge is keeping kids active beyond the
school gates. ukactive’s own research shows that kids lose the fitness
levels they have built up at school during the school holidays. There is a
strong argument that the forthcoming funding from the soft drinks levy
must go wider than the PE and Sport Premium and support families
who cannot afford or access the summer programmes that would
maintain their children’s activity levels.
Our reality is that only half of seven-year-olds today meet the 60
minutes of daily physical activity recommended by the Chief Medical
Officer. We cannot accept that any longer. My time as a politician has
already taught me that political change comes through pressure. The
pressure in this context is the overwhelming case for changing our
children’s activity levels, combatting generation inactive. The tough part
is now taking the bold and radical decisions that make our children
active again, and which are backed up by delivery. We must all be
partners in achieving that.
POLICY-UK EVENTS SCHEDULE
Public policy conferences, seminars and roundtables - bringing together central
and local government, business, charities and consumer - citizen groups to examine
the future direction of legislative and regulatory reform.
BELOW IS A LIST OF OUR UPCOMING EVENTS:
Young People and the Justice System – Delivering a
Positive Outcome: Early Intervention, Education and
Reducing Reoffending
Tuesday 13th September
41 Portland Place, London, W1B 1QH
Keynote Speaker: Lord McNally, Chair, Youth Justice
Board (YJB)
The Taylor Review - Outcomes and recommendations,
analysis of the interim report and the future of YOIs and
STCs;
Collaboration - How to promote closer and more joined
up working between the organisations and public
bodies charged with protecting and supporting young
people to intervene and prevent a spiral of activity; and
Devolved Responsibility - Implications to the youth justice
system of empowering PCCs and local authorities and
the potential challenges facing the move to local focus.
Social Media: Regulation and Law – Enforcement,
Privacy and Getting to Grips with Jokes, Pokes and Twits
Wednesday 14th September 2016
Hallam Conference Centre, 44 Hallam Street, London,
W1W 6JJ
Keynote Speaker: Neil Moore QC, Adviser to the Director
of Public Prosecutions, Crown Prosecution Service
Social Media Users: Freedom, Ownership and
Responsibility;
Enforcement: The Should (and Could) of Taming the
‘Wild Web West’;
Messaging: Privacy, Encryption and Data Protection.
Social Mobility in Higher Education - Raising attainment,
reducing educational gaps and improving retention
Thursday 15th September 2016
Cavendish Conference Centre, 22 Duchess Mews,
London, W1G 9DT
Keynote Speaker: Professor Les Ebdon, Director of Fair
Access to Higher Education
Outcomes and recommendations from the Social
Mobility Advisory Group report, expected in Summer;
Current and future policies aimed at breaking down
barriers to Higher Education, including the proposal for
a ‘transparency duty’ for universities’ admissions and
retention data; and
How to improve the ‘student life-cycle’ and progress
made since the publication of the Social Mobility
Commission’s State of the Nation Report in December.
Delivering the UK’s IoT Revolution - Building the
Infrastructure, Ensuring the Security and Realising the
Economic Potential
Thursday 22nd September 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Kevin Baughan, Director of Technology
and Innovation, Innovate UK
Priorities for encouraging investment into the sector,
developing commercial opportunities and supporting
adoption;
Future infrastructure, spectrum and skills requirements to
support growth; and
How to future-proof technologies, reassure consumers
and businesses about security, resilience and privacy
concerns, and the next steps for creating a coherent
and cooperative regulatory environment.
Supporting a Healthy Childhood – Policy Priorities for
Obesity, Active Lifestyles and Taking Responsibility
Thursday 13th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Senior representative, Public Health
England
Policy priorities and implementation of the Government’s
Childhood Obesity Strategy;
Implications of the Sugar Tax on extra funding for school
sports and how this will help to encourage children to
have more active lifestyles; and
Improving the diets of children and young people, and
how to ensure everyone has access to healthy options
regardless of background or socioeconomic status.

EVENTS SCHEDULE
EVENTS SCHEDULE
Delivering for Haulage - The Workforce, Innovation and
the Integrated Multimodal Freight Network Challenge
Tuesday, 18th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Louise Ellman MP, Chair, House of
Commons Transport Select Committee
Freight Workforce: Retention, the Next Generation and
Conditions;
The New Business Models: Innovations, Digital Disruption
and lessons from Amazon!?
Infrastructure - Sustainability By Rail, By Road, By Sea, by Air.
A Vision for British Broadcasting - Public Service Content,
the USP of NOW & Revenue Streams
Tuesday, 18th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Lord Best, Chair, Lords Communications
Committee
Retaining Quality and Public Service Content;
Discoverability, Interactivity and the Power of Live TV and
Radio; and
Funding, Advertising and the continued value of mass
market approaches.
The New Economics of News - Changing Consumption,
Changing Content
Wednesday, 19th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Jon Snow, Presenter, Channel 4 News
Public Trust: Regulation and the Capitalising on the
News Industry’s USP in the Era of Ubiquitous Content;
Consumption: Demographics, Social Media and the
Digital Echo Chamber; and
Funding: ‘Ire for Hire’, Click-Bait and New Approaches to
Advertising & Paywalls.
Women Mean Business - Ensuring Representation
on Boards, Empowering the Female Workforce and
Eliminating the Gender Pay Gap
Thursday, 20th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Dame Helen Alexander, Deputy Chair,
Hampton/Alexander Review and Chairman, UBM
Taking forward recommendations from the five-year
summary of the Davies Review of Women on Boards
and the progress made so far in the follow up Hampton/
Alexander Review of the FTSE 350;
Supporting women throughout their career, from
recruitment, progression and return to work after
maternity leave or a career break, as well as ensuring
an adequate pipeline; and
How to eradicate the gender pay gap ‘within a
generation’, looking at recommendations from recent
inquiries from the Government Equalities Office and the
Women and Equalities Select Committee.
Student Lifestyles on Campus - Protection from Abuse,
Ensuring Emotional Wellbeing and the Impact of PREVENT
Tuesday, 25th October 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Professor Graham Towl , Pro-Vice-
Chancellor and Deputy Warden at Durham University,
Chair of the Durham Sexual Violence Taskforce
Looking at the prevalence of sexual harassment on
campus and ways forward to create safer student
communities;
Ensuring student mental health - in light of greater
pressure on grades since the increase in fees as well as
a harder graduate labour market; and
Tackling violence and hate crime at universities,
particularly discussing any progress made by the
PREVENT strategy and how to eradicate the ‘lad culture’.
Modernising the UK’s Energy Network - Delivering a Smart
Power Revolution - Interconnection, Energy Storage,
Demand-Side Response and Local Network Management
Tuesday, 1st November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Philip Graham, Chief Executive,
National Infrastructure Commission
Utilising New Technology - Increasing Interconnection
Capacity and Developing Energy Storage;
Promoting Demand Flexibility and the Smart Grid - Shifting
Demand, Smart Meters and Voltage Control Systems;
Active Network Management - Local Networks, New
Technology and Integrating Low Carbon Energy.
Healthcare Education in England - Ensuring the Future
Generation of Nurses and Allied Health Professionals
Wednesday, 2nd November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Jackie Smith, Chair and Chief Executive,
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Funding the Training and Education of Britain’s Future
Healthcare Professionals: The Impact on Students of the
Demise/Replacement of the NHS Bursary Law and How
to Encouraging ‘Home-Grown’ Nurses;
Ensuring the Pipeline of Talent: Lifting the Number Cap,
Implications of Brexit;
Alternative Routes to Allied Healthcare: Nursing
Associates, Apprenticeships and Accessibility.
Confronting Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking -
Empowering Law Enforcement, Supporting the Victims
and Ending the Trade in Human Beings
Thursday, 3rd November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Kevin Hyland, Independent Anti-Slavery
Commissioner
Supporting Survivors: Identification, Safeguards and the NRM;
Law Enforcement: Improving Reporting, PCCs and the Courts;
Collaboration: Engaging with the Private Sector to Tackle
the Supply Chain.
The SharEconomy and Collaborative Consumer -
Second Gen Digital Disruption: Regulatory Responses,
Employment and Disownership
Thursday, 3rd November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Patrick Robinson, Head of Policy, EMEA
& Canada, Airbnb
The New Wave of Digital Disruption to the Retail,
Hospitality, Automotive and Media Industries;
Government in the Sharing Space, Consumer
Confidence and the Power of a Rating;
Implications for Employee Rights, Flexible Working & Tax.
UK Sport: Faster, Stronger, Better - Emerging Strategies
for Governance, Grassroots, Inclusion and Wellbeing
Wednesday 16th November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Jennie Price, Chief Executive, Sport
England
Grassroots, Inclusion, Participation and Wellbeing;
Embedding Integrity, Sustainability and Diversity in UK
Sports; and
Increasing UK Medal Potential and Building on Major
Event Successes.
The Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Future - Putting
Britain at the Forefront of the 4th Industrial Revolution
Wednesday 23rd November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Professor David Lane CBE FREng FRSE,
RAS-SIG Steering Group Chair and Professor of Autonomous
Systems Engineering at Heriot-Watt University
Enabling New Technologies - Evaluating research and
Funding Structures in the UK and discussing how Robotics
and AI can be supported. Considering the new Intellectual
Property Bill and how this will affect research and how
organisations work together.
Opportunities at Home and Abroad - Discussing the
economic opportunities at home and abroad and the
changing landscape of this which will include discussions
of Brexit. Further discussions will turn to how universities
can work with government and research councils to
encourage skills and support this growing industry;
Ethical and Social Issues - Will robotics and AI prove to be
a force for good improving people’s quality of life or will
the future look like the apocalyptic view of the machines
where they become too smart and potentially dangerous.
Priorities for Clean Air & Pollution - Regulatory Priorities,
Lowering Particulates and Making it Matter to Business
and Consumers
Thursday 24th November 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Neil Parish MP, Chair, House of Commons
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Developing Coherent and Realistic Policy: What role does
Government (both National and Local) need to play
in improving air quality, lowering pollution and creating
cleaner urban environments?
Technology for Cleaner Air: Sustainable Transport, Smog
Towers and Blue Sky Thinking;
Green Premium and the Commercial Value of Being
Carbon Neutral: How can businesses be made to see
their carbon footprint as part of their business model rather
than their CSR and does it factor in a consumer’s decision
making process?
Great British Broadband - Delivering the High Fibre, Low
Ping Promise
Wednesday 7th December 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Matthew Evans, CEO, Broadband
Stakeholder Group
Britain’s NGN Deployment Challenge: Getting the Ducts
(and Poles) in Order;
Can’t Connect, Won’t Connect: Not Spots, Digital Opt
Outs and Universal Service;
A Digital First Britain: Cultural Change + Broadband
Infrastructure = The New Industrial Revolution.
What Next for British Science? - Assessing Architectural
Changes to Research Funding and Evaluating the
Impact of BREXIT
Monday 12th December 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: David Sweeney, CEO, Director
(Research, Education and Knowledge Exchange), Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
Brexit and the Financial Fallout - Beyond Article 50: Horizon
2020, Inward Investment and the Implications of the
Underwriting of EU Funds Can’t Connect, Won’t Connect:
Not Spots, Digital Opt Outs and Universal Service;
The Threats and Opportunities for British Science UK out of
the EU: Free Movement (or not), Maintaining Relationships
and Regulatory Frameworks Reform;
Navigating the Changes to Research Funding Architecture:
Implementing the HE Bill, the Creation of UKRI and the Role
of BEIS.
Faith in the Media - Realistic Portrayals, Realistic
Headlines and Freedom to Believe
Wednesday 14th December 2016
Central London
Keynote Speaker: Aaqil Ahmed, Head of Religion and
Ethics, BBC
Religion on Screen - Portrayals of Faith on Television, In
Print and In Advertising;
Faith and the Newsroom - Sensitivity, Sensationalism
and Religion in the Headlines;
Being of Faith and Changing Society - Tolerance,
Censorship and Freedom of Religion.
For further information about any of the above events, please visit www.policy-uk.com, or,
alternatively, call 0845 647 9000. You can also email us at info@policy-uk.com

politics first | Diary
118
Brexit: Dave should
have declined
Hague and the
Chicago pizza
A ComRes poll for the Sunday Mirror
showed that 38 per cent of voters thought
Theresa May should face an early General
Election to give her a mandate to govern,
while 46 per cent didn’t. That was
surprising. Ask people if they’d like a say
on anything from corporation tax to capital
punishment and they tend to say they want
their say. But then the same poll gave May
stratospheric approval ratings last seen
when people actually liked Tony Blair. So
she’s clearly enjoying a particularly happy
honeymoon with voters.
The last time this Diary appeared David
Cameron was PM, George Osborne was
Chancellor, Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow
Cabinet hadn’t walked out on him and
Owen Smith was a familiar face only to his
Pontypridd constituents. What a difference
a referendum makes. And how Cameron
must wish he hadn’t been talked into one
by William Hague at a pizza parlour in
Chicago’s O’Hare airport in 2012 on their
way back from Washington. If Labour’s
Clem Attlee or Tory Margaret Thatcher had
been around, they would have told him it
was crackers. They had a low opinion of
referendums, believing them of use only to
fascists. Hitler held four.
To the startled Brexiteers, the result was
a victory for democracy; to Nicola Sturgeon,
democracy was the loser as Scotland
overwhelmingly voted to remain. Now she
has to get around the awkward question of
whether Scots have a democratic right to
stay in the European Union by leaving the
UK when a democratic vote accepted by the
UK applies to Scotland as much as it does
to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Good luck with that one, Nic. Or should
the whole UK have a democratic right to
change its mind about Brexit in a second
referendum as Owen Smith proposes? And
if the second result differs from the first,
should it be best of three?
Nigel Nelson
Nelson’s Column
Keeping an eye on The People
In a sense, that is how General
Elections work. Every five years, voters
have the opportunity to say whether
they have changed their minds since
the previous one. Yet as the Liberal
Democrats never tire of pointing
out, our political system is not very
democratic, with the result decided in
100 marginal constituencies. Nick Clegg
put proportional representation to a
referendum in 2011. But when the voters
were offered more democracy, nearly 70
per cent exercised their democratic right
to reject it. I suggested to Clegg during
last year’s General Election campaign
he would have been wiser to wait until
people were more comfortable with
coalition government and he thought I
might have been right. Clearly I wasn’t,
given the Liberal Democrat wipeout only
a few days later.
Strange beast, democracy. It may yet
deliver the White House to Donald Trump
and is already securing power for populist
parties across Europe. Winston Churchill
said: “Democracy is the worst form of
government – except for all the others.”
I tend to agree with that, with the caveat
that even democracy can sometimes get
it wrong. It did with Hitler, and took a
world war to put right. The Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea would appear
to live up to its name. In last year’s ballot,
there was a 99.97 per cent turnout and
they all voted for Kim Jong-un. A test of
democratic legitimacy would be to find
out where the remaining 0.03 per cent
are now.
Theresa May’s mandate to be PM is
0.00045 per cent as she got the job on
the say so of just 199 voters out of an
electorate of 44 million, so Britain is on
sticky ground to talk of leaders being
elected democratically. But that didn’t
stop May turning her Cabinet reshuffle
into a bloodbath and surprising everyone
by making Boris Johnson foreign
secretary. Jeremy Corbyn told me he
gulped in disbelief at the news. Yet the
more I think about it, the more politically
astute it seems. Had Boris stood against
her, he would almost certainly have
forced the Tory leadership contest to a
ballot of members, and quite possibly
won. This way, May keeps her enemy
close, and if Boris does mess up, that
will end him as a threat.
I do hope her promoting Chris Heaton-
Harris to government whip will not stop
his irreverent tweets. A recent offering
was: “The All-Party Parliamentary
Group for Time Travel next meets three
weeks ago.” And May made the Lords
say goodbye to its leader Tina Stowell.
Peers paid tribute to Baroness Stowell by
remembering how she entertained them
with an explanation of same sex marriage
law, which does not recognise adultery
as grounds for divorce if the cheating
occurs with someone of the same gender.
Had she been married to George
Clooney who had sex with a male
peer, she could only divorce him for
unreasonable behaviour. However, if
Mr Clooney then married that peer but
subsequently had sex with ex-wife Tina,
then the cuckold could cite adultery.
Baroness Stowell’s fascination with the
Hollywood heartthrob extends to a lifesized
cutout of him in her office.