Should the Institute of Fiscal Studies receive millions from the taxpayer?

Does it matter that the Institute for Fiscal Studies is such a large recipient of taxpayers' largesse? Answers to written questions in Parliament have revealed that in the last 10 years, Whitehall has funded the IFS to the tune of £2.6 million. 

To take just a few examples:

The Department for Work and Pensions has spent £1.7 million.

The Department for Education has spent £400,000. 

The Department of Business and Skills has spent £250,000.

The Treasury has spent £147,000.

This funding from Whitehall does not include the money paid directly to the IFS by the BBC, the devolved administrations in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, the Bank of England, or the European Commission: all major supporters. Therefore, the true public sector cost of the IFS will be much higher than it appears.

Indeed, in 2009, the IFS received a substantial part of its core funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), worth up to £6.8 million over five years. And ESRC in turn is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills...

This raises many questions. Why is it necessary for the Government to spend such vast sums of money on one particular think tank? Given that the Treasury, the Bank of England, and all the Government Ministries are staffed with economists and statisticians, why is it that the IFS needs to be the beneficiary of taxpayer funding?  Why should this economic think tank be favoured over others?  Why has funding not gone to other think tanks with a different world view, such as the Institute of Economic Affairs?

There are further questions as to whether or not the IFS actually tendered for Government contracts, or were just lucky recipients of one handout after another. 

As I wrote in a previous article for ConservativeHome, it is good that the IFS exists to vigorously question and analyse economic policy.  Most reasonable people acknowledge the expertise and high standard of IFS work. 

But, that is very different from 'the State' acting as a kind of guarantor in supplying the IFS with millions of pounds of steady income from the taxpayer. The IFS is not the only think tank in the village.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Labour and cuts

It is so easy for the Labour Party at present. Difficult decisions made by the Coalition Government - on welfare, higher education, local government and policing - can be opposed as 'wicked cuts' detrimental to public services. Much simpler to express outrage against Coalition plans to cut the deficit. Much harder for the Government to explain why paying £120 million a day in debt interest alone is unsustainable in the long term. Not least because all this debt repayment could otherwise be spent on public services.

Whereas cuts are immediate and real, dealing with debt - even if the economy is almost bankrupt - is much more abstract.

Yet, Labour's easy short term political gain might not be so clever in the long term. If after months and years of undergoing the political pain of cuts, the economy improves, with the debt and deficit reduced, the Labour Party could significantly suffer in the polls. By 2014, if the Coalition can announce lower taxes as well as more money for reformed public services, they will reap the electoral dividend.

To be fair, not all senior Labour politicians are so short-sighted. Douglas Alexander MP (one of Gordon Brown's top Lieutenants), has argued that Labour lost the election because they simply denied that cuts were necessary. Through their language and rhetoric, they came over to the public as 'deficit-deniers' rather than economic realists. In a recent speech he stated:

"As I argued within government at the time and as I still believe today, the repeated refusal by some to use the word "cuts" for many months after the global financial crisis and the repetition of phrases like 'Mr 10%' gravely damaged voters' confidence that we got it,".

Mr Alexander's honesty is refreshing. He needs to pass his message on to his colleagues on the Labour benches, if his party is to regain economic credibility.

P.S. You can read more HERE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/30/labour-gordon-brown-cuts-douglas-alexander?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

The FA must put its own house in order if it is to ask for reform of FIFA

Most reasonable people would accept, that almost everything that could be done regarding England’s World Cup bid was done, and that FIFA needs fundamental reform.

However, the Football Association, undermines its case for change in FIFA, by failing to put its own house in order.   If FIFA is to become more transparent and open, then so must the FA too.

For a number of months now - I have argued that the current constitution of the FA is failing English football and fans in general.

In June, I tabled a Commons motion calling for the FA board to resign following the England World Cup debacle.  The Motion called for a democratic revolution, led by the fans, to transform football governance in our country.

The real obstacle to footballing success is the failed managers, failed contracts and the failed payouts — some say that it is up to £50 million or £60 million in recent years — of the Football Association itself.

The organisation enjoys a virtual monopoly over the sport. It is a semi-public body and its activities are of great public concern, so the public must have some means of redress.

The FA board is run like a Byzantine court, with decisions being made like puffs of white smoke appearing from the rooftops. Currently, its board is not democratic, and it is not even bureaucratically accountable to any outside body. There needs to be complete overhaul of the way the FA is run - so that the organisation can become truly accountable to England fans.

Why not have a form of voting rights that would give England supporters the opportunity to have their say on who should be in charge at the FA?   If the FA board can be booted out by the fans, it will start to sit up and listen.

My solution would be the introduction of a paid subscription system — perhaps £50 a year — whereby England fans could exercise voting rights in the FA. This would be similar to a  a co-operative shareholding, but limited to one vote for each person.

It would be in the national interest for England fans to be able to vote for the FA board and chairman and to fire them if they did a bad job. Fans could vote for the board and chairman for a three or four-year term. They would also have the right to decide the level of spending on grass-roots and community football, and to vote on the annual budget report.

It is true that the coalition agreement, refers to reforming football governance and institutions so that co-operative ownership models can be established by supporters. But the FA should be included in those reforms and freed from the iron grip of the premier league.   As a Conservative, my hope is that the FA would adopt those reforms voluntarily.

Just as the people of this country elect the Government, so the fans should have some say in the state of our national game. I want all England fans to be able to say genuinely that ‘we are all in this together’, and for that to be backed up by real community power.

Enough is enough: if England are to win a major tournament - or gain a major tournament - we cannot go on as we are.  To adapt what Abraham Lincoln famously said about democracy, I hope that our Government will lean on the FA and empower our football fans to give this country’s football a new birth of freedom, so that football of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

This posting was also published on Conservative Home earlier today.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Voter recall

You may remember that in a recent blog posting, I mentioned how I had appeared on Newsnight, regarding the Phil Woolas case.  My main point was that unelected judges should not have the right to remove voters from Parliament - only voters through a system of voter recall.

Early this morning - I had a chance to make the case again on BBC Radio 4 Today Show.  I was asked on the programme, to debate with Shadow Public Health Minister Diane Abbott MP, following the news yesterday that Mr Woolas had lost his appeal in the courts.  The Shadow Minister took the opposite view to me arguing that "the law was the law".

My key point was that one hundred years ago, it was the law that stated that women did not have the right to vote, but that did not mean it was necessarily right.  In the same way - in my view - the law is wrong concerning Mr Woolas.  Certainly, it is right that he should be sued for defamation and have to pay damages - as in any other defamation case - but that does not mean an unelected judiciary should go one step further, and frustrate the will of the electorate.

Instead, if an MP is judged to have committed wrong-doing (as in the Woolas case), voters would have the right of recall.  If up to ten per cent signed a petition, a By-Election would then be-called and local constituents would have a chance to remove the MP.

I am not saying that an MP who has done wrong should not be punished by the courts.  Far from it - just that he should be removed as elected representative only by voters - not by judges.

Neither am I arguing for voter recall if some voters are unhappy, with an MP's particular policy stance.  Voter recall should only apply if an MP has committed wrong-doing.

P.S.  You can hear the Today Programme debate HERE.

P.P.S. The Coalition Government Agreement, has this to say on voter recall:

"The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents".

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Reform of the Mobility Allowance

In recent weeks, a number of constituents have contacted me, deeply worried about the Government's plans for reform of the mobility allowance  - for those recipients in Care Homes.  In the House of Commons debate this week,  I was able to bring this to the attention of Maria Miller (Minister for the disabled):

My speech is below:

"I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) on his thoughtful speech and on securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I understand his intentions.

I want to start by acknowledging the need for welfare reform, which is one of the single most important things that the Government are doing. I know that many Opposition Members, such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), have wanted to reform welfare during the past 13 years. Like me, they will welcome the fact that the Government are committed to a universal credit.

Many of my constituents will welcome this chance to escape the poverty trap. However, on the specific issue of the mobility element of disability allowance, many constituents have contacted me with genuine family concerns. Only a small number are affected but, as has been noted, they are deeply anxious, and they do not have a political axe to grind. I have already spoken to the Minister about this and written to her about specific cases in my constituency. Ms Jacqueline Hobbs is concerned about the low residual income that will be left for people in care homes. Mr Kevin McGrath is worried that the cut will apply also to younger adults, who prize their independence and need mobility services to have a decent quality of life. Ms Jean Plumridge is anxious that disabled people must not become prisoners in their own homes, but must retain access to the outside world.

It is important to be clear about what the new Government are proposing. They inherited the largest deficit in our peacetime history, and we now spend £120 million a day on debt interest alone. In June, as part of the emergency Budget, the Government announced that they would save £11 billion a year from welfare spending by 2014-15.

Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about debt, will he tell us how people in residential homes who have taken out
30 Nov 2010 : Column 204WH
loans to buy electric wheelchairs to use outside will repay that debt? What do the Government have to say to them?

Robert Halfon: If the hon. Lady is patient, she will hear the answer later in my remarks.

To preserve spending on other front-line services, the Government then announced that they would have to go even further in tackling the extremely large welfare bill. One way in which they are doing that is by ending the mobility component of DLA from 2012-13 to claimants who have been in a residential care home for more than 28 days, which will affect about 58,000 claimants. The Treasury says that that will save £60 million in 2012 and that the figure will rise to £135 million by the end of the Parliament. I appreciate, however, that the Government have confirmed that affected residents will retain an underlying entitlement to the benefit, and that payments will start again if they leave the care home. I also understand that the measure will not be introduced until October 2012. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social care funding.

Dr Whiteford: I come back to the point that I made to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke): local authorities face the same squeeze in their budgets as everybody else. I know from my constituency that there are some great voluntary services supporting wheelchair users and people with severe mobility problems who live in care homes or in their own homes, but who do not have access to transport. However, those charities are terribly strapped financially because of a lack of giving and the problems with trust funds. There is nothing to pick up the slack. Why should disabled people be on the front line? Why should they be punished for financial mistakes that were not of their making?

Robert Halfon: I thank the hon. Lady, but I do not agree that all care homes would be unable to afford to provide mobility equipment if there was a statutory requirement. I have a further response to what she says, but I will come to it later.

Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise the extent of the problem? There are 42 care homes in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) indicated, this issue affects a massive population of elderly and young people. In my case, we are talking about hundreds of people. Every one of those care homes without exception has written to me about this issue-this is massive.

Robert Halfon: I am here today because I accept that this is a serious problem. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on compassion; I care just as much about disabled people as they do.

Let me explain what I want to happen and what I believe should happen. Local authorities will have a legal obligation to provide mobility services for residents from their social funding. That funding will increasingly be distributed in the form of personal budgets, giving disabled people more choice and control over their services, including access to mobility equipment, taxis or scooters, if that suits them. That will end the anomaly
30 Nov 2010 : Column 205WH
whereby two state-funded residents with similar needs who are placed in the same care home can be treated differently according to whether they are funded through the NHS or the local authority.

I welcome the fact that the Government are waiting until 2012 to introduce this change, because it is important to give local authorities enough time. They will need safely to translate people on to personal budgets and to get those budgets up and running on a mass scale. Despite the welcome introduction of personal budgets in 2007, progress in rolling them out was simply too slow.

Kate Green: One difficulty that many of my constituents face is that they are in residential care outside the borough because there are insufficient places in the borough, which means that their transport costs are higher. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about stretching personal budgets far enough to meet those costs?

Robert Halfon: In some ways, I agree with the hon. Lady. The whole point of my argument is that we need to extend the personal budgets.

As was mentioned, the Audit Commission recently highlighted the fact that although some local authorities were on course to offer 30% of eligible people a personal budget by April 2011, most were not, and only six out of 152 councils are currently on track. What is more, a 2010 survey showed that only 6% of total spending on adult social care was allocated to personal budgets. That is a disappointing record, given the huge potential of personal budgets to give disabled people more independence.

My central concern is that we must help the 58,000 claimants I mentioned to access personal budgets before the mobility element of DLA is withdrawn. 

On that basis, I have a few questions for the Minister. Will she reassure hon. Members that the Government will seek to migrate those 58,000 claimants to personal budgets before 2012? Will she set out how the statutory requirement for local authorities to provide mobility services will work in practice? Finally, will she reassure my constituents that disabled people will continue to be supported so that they can keep their independence and mobility?

In conclusion, many people in Harlow are concerned for their families. They do not have a political axe to grind, but they are genuinely anxious about the future. As someone with a disability, I know that any change, or any threat of change, can cause immense anxiety, even if the outcome is not as drastic as expected. The problem with the changes that have been proposed is that decent people are worried. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members and my constituents that disabled people and their families will not suffer as a result of these reforms."

In response, the Minister stated:

"My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made an important contribution to the debate and asked a number of specific questions. He, too, has had to leave, to attend a Select Committee meeting. I can clarify that the measure was designed to remove overlaps in the payment of mobility support, as I have outlined. It is not intended to lead to a loss of independence and we remain committed to promoting greater personalisation for disabled people. I reiterate that milestones have been agreed with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, including the growth in personal budgets, and that we are absolutely committed to the implementation of personalisation across the board."

The full debate can be found HERE.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Easing over-crowding for Harlow rail commuters

Some rare good news today, as there is a glimmer of hope for hard-pressed Harlow commuters who travel regularly on the train-line from Harlow to London. During Transport Questions in the Commons, I asked the following: "Thousands of my Harlow commuters have been braving the weather to travel on the Harlow to London rail line. They have suffered a 30 per cent increase in train overcrowding in recent years. Will the Minister look at the economic benefits of upgrading the West Anglia main line?" In answer, Transport Secretary, Mr Hammond stated: "176 additional carriages are due to be delivered to the Greater Anglia franchise next year. That will assist with overcrowding overall....We are prepared to look at proposals for further network enhancements as possible investments... which begins in 2014."  It is encouraging that, not only will additional carriages arrive next year, the Government have given a strong indication that they will look at further investment.  Harlow commuters deserve nothing less.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

A Royal Society of Apprentices

My campaign for a Royal Society of Apprentices continues apace.  Today in Commons Business Questions, I asked the following:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 587, which is about creating a Royal Society of Apprentices and is signed by MPs from all parties?

[That this House welcomes the Government's plans to restore apprenticeships to their former glory; considers that such a change in policy must be supported by a change in culture; believes that this Parliament should create a new golden age of vocational training, where apprenticeships are seen as prestigious and of equal value to a university degree; further believes that a Royal Society of Apprentices, similar to the Law Society or the British Medical Association, should be established to replicate the vibrant social life of universities for students in vocational training; further believes that there should be an annual apprentices day in every local authority, which would build on the already successful Vocational Qualifications Day and act as a formal graduation ceremony for vocational students; and calls on the Government to add its voice in support of these efforts in the coming months and years.]

Yesterday I met representatives of the main apprenticeship organisations around the country, and the relevant Minister has also given his backing to the idea. May we have a debate on how we might put it into practice?

Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It strikes me that he might apply for one of the slots in the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate, recently advertised by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). He would then have an opportunity to develop his case at greater length and get a confident and, I hope, positive response from the appropriate Minister.

****************************************

As well as my question, you might like to see the following article I wrote, which was published yesterday on Conservative Home:

"Apprentice Minister John Hayes’ recent article on apprenticeships on Conservative Home set in train a remarkable transformation on our attitudes to young people.  For a number of years now - particularly under the last Labour Government - the whole thrust has been ‘university, university, university’.  The idea of becoming an apprentice, gradually decayed, until it became less and less important as time went on.  But not every young person wanted to go to university education, and some preferred vocational training as a means to find work. 

To be fair, Labour did spend millions on various schemes - like Train to Gain for example.  However, the results were patchy and over one million young people across the country were not in work or training by the time the Government left office.

Under Labour, the problem got worse and worse:

John Hayes is right that transforming apprenticeships is not just about economic efficiency.  It is about social justice as well.  If you give young people real opportunities of skills and trainings, you get them off the street, give them stability and a real chance of a job for the future.

That is why I took on the first ever MP Apprentice, Andy Huckle, who will gain a Level 3 at the end of his year with me and Harlow College.

But, we need to do much more than just increasing the number of apprentices.  We must increase the prestige also. 

Since I have entered the House of Commons as MP for Harlow, I have been calling for the establishment of a Royal Society of Apprenticeships, rather like the Law Society or British Medical Association, with a social and professional network, similar to that provided by Universities.  I have tabled this Commons Motion and brought it up on the floor of the Commons.

To ask why this is needed, raises a series of questions:

1) Why is it that if a student goes to University, he is often cited in his or her local newspaper, yet if a young person does an apprentice, no one hardly notices?

2) Why is that - according to EDGE (the skills network) -  two-thirds of teachers regard their knowledge of apprenticeships as poor, and that just one in four teachers recommends apprenticeships over higher education? 

3) Why is it that every other type of profession, has some kind of professional organisation to serve and support it?

A Royal Society would dramatically increase the prestige and culture around apprenticeships and could mark a real change to how apprenticeships are viewed. 

As Mr Hayes states:

“But there is beauty, too, in the economy and certainty of movement of a master craftsman.  I believe that both kinds of beauty must be recognised.  And that implies not that the stock of academe must fall but that the stock of craft must rise.  Proper recognition of craftsmen across sectors will not only offer the emblems of achievement to individuals but also provide business with important commercial advantages.  Firms that invest in training deserve recognition and will be able to use the achievements gained by their staff as marketing tools.”

To this end, today, every major apprenticeship-related organisation in the country will be meeting with me in the House of Commons, to try and make this happen. From Worshipful Livery Companies, to EDGE, to the Association of Colleges, to UK Skills, to the NUS, and many others too. The purpose is simple.  Each organisation, representing different parts of the apprenticeship framework, will provide the jigsaw to make a possible the establishment of a Royal Society of Apprentices. 

We know that we have the Minister’s backing.  We have the support from all the major apprenticeship organisations.  All we need now is the blessing of a higher authority". 

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Happy Chanukah

I am of the Jewish Faith and I thought it would be nice to wish any Jewish readers of my blog a very happy Chanukah.

This 'Festival of Lights' begins today, and a candle is lit on a candelabra known as a 'Menorah' every day for the next eight days.

I was very pleased to celebrate this 'First Day' at Number Ten. To an accompanying children's choir, Chancellor George Osborne lit the candle - alongside the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. In the Jewish tradition, donuts and smoked salmon rolls abounded.

It was a wonderful way to mark Chanukah - I felt very honoured to be in Downing Street. This is an important festival and celebrates the survival of the Jewish people against the odds.

The Prime Minister has also sent a message wishing a Merry Chanukah to all. You can read it HERE.

You can see more details about Chanukah HERE.