Neil Hogbin, Partner at Fisher German, believes the Renters’ Rights Act could see rental stock fall as landlords leave the sector, creating further pressure on supply despite demand remaining exceptionally strong.

The Renter’s Rights Act was drawn up with good intentions – to give more rights to tenants.

Higher standards for tenants are well supported across the property industry, and most responsible landlords already understand that providing stable homes for people to live in is their main role.

However, we are already seeing the Act reducing confidence among landlords, which will have knock-on effects for renters.

In recent years, landlords have faced regulatory change, tax reforms, rising compliance requirements and increasing costs. The Renters’ Rights Act arrives against that backdrop.

Some landlords believe these changes have come along too quickly.

We are already seeing evidence of that in conversations with clients. Some are choosing to sell rental properties. Others are deciding against expanding their portfolios. Some investors are looking elsewhere.

Every landlord who leaves the market takes a property with them, which matters, because rental supply is already low.

Demand remains extremely strong across much of the country and many rental properties attract significant interest within days of going on the market. In some locations, would-be tenants are competing against many others for the same home.

A reduction in available stock only increases those pressures.

The likely outcome is greater competition for properties, creating more demand and higher rents. For younger people and those unable to access home ownership, finding a suitable rental property will be even harder.

There is a risk that the Act may backfire. Greater security for tenants is a good thing. However, security means little if the supply of homes continues to shrink and access to the sector becomes more challenging for renters.

That is why landlord retention deserves far more attention. It’s not something policymakers can just ignore.

Landlords who stay in the sector will need to adapt.  At Fisher German, we are advising clients to review their documentation and compliance procedures. Many landlords are also choosing tenants more carefully and having closer relationships throughout a tenancy. These can all reduce risk.

The landlords who are likely to perform best over the coming years will be those who treat residential property as a professional business. Managing a portfolio well is becoming more important than ever.

The private rented sector remains an essential part of the UK’s housing market and will continue to house millions of people. Demand for rental accommodation is unlikely to weaken any time soon.

The bigger question is whether enough landlords will stick around in the aftermath of the Renters Rights Act. If confidence continues to fall and more landlords leave like we are seeing at the moment, the effects will be felt across the market, particularly by tenants competing for shrinking number of homes.

The post The long-term health of the private rented sector is a balance between the rights of tenants and the viability of landlords providing the housing tenants need to live. appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The wider potential consequences of the Makerfield by-election will inevitably spark a familiar debate in Westminster. What does the result tell us about voters? Have political parties moved too far on climate policy, or not far enough? Should politicians double down on climate action, or quietly retreat?

Too often, debates about climate change are driven by assumptions made by political, media and business elites rather than by data. As a result, a growing conventional wisdom has emerged that climate action has become politically toxic, that voters are turning away from the issue, and that leaders should talk about it less. New research suggests the opposite.

The reality is climate change is a winning issue with the public, if you talk about it the right way.

I run a nonprofit devoted to educating people about climate change. We’re driven solely by data, ruthlessly evaluating what narratives work, what don’t, and why. For nearly a decade, we’ve spent thousands of hours in focus groups, surveyed over half-a-million people, and tested hundreds and hundreds of messages. Most recently, Potential Energy Coalition, with support from The Rockefeller Foundation, completed one of the largest climate opinion studies conducted in recent years, surveying more than 83,000 people across the UK, US, Canada, France, Germany and Italy. The findings reveal important truths about what matters to people, the words that deepen divisions, and the ones that can build consensus.

Across all six countries, overwhelming majorities support government action on climate change. Support extends well beyond traditional progressive audiences, including among many centre-right voters and younger conservatives. In the UK, 90% of people say climate change is happening, 78% are worried about it, and 78% support clean energy solutions.

Despite strong and bipartisan public support, over the past few years, a phenomenon known as “climate hushing” has taken hold. Climate coverage in the media has fallen sharply from its 2021 peak. Corporate discussion of climate and ESG issues has dropped dramatically. Political leaders who once spoke openly about climate increasingly appear reluctant to do so. This retreat reflects a growing institutional assumption that climate has become too politically difficult to discuss.

Part of the problem is that the language most leaders turn to does, in fact, narrow the audience. “Achieving net zero” ranks near the absolute bottom on the public’s list of concerns. Anytime the word “ban” or “mandate” is mentioned, public support drops as much as 20%. “Green jobs” sound more like a promise than a reality, a “massive energy transition” sounds difficult and expensive, and the scolding “shoulds” and “sacrifices” of traditional environmental communication increasingly turn people off to the cause.

What we need isn’t a massive shying away from the issue, but a new narrative. We can recapture momentum and broaden support if we shift the way we’re telling our stories.

First, we need to focus on the human and material consequences of climate change. Across all six countries, the three messages most effective at increasing support for policy action–boosting support by up to 9 percentage points in the UK–centered on the everyday impacts on our health, our money, and the people and places we love. Human stories about tangible consequences beat abstract arguments every time.

Second, we need to make the cause concrete: “pollution” reminds people climate change is a problem we can solve. Framing the challenge as “reducing pollution” (versus the more abstract, “fighting climate change”) makes the problem feel 10-20% more solvable.

Finally, we need to make the cure exciting. By a ratio of more than 2 to 1, people across the globe think building ‘all or mostly clean’ is a better way to meet growing demand for energy than ‘all or mostly fossil.’ Instead of focusing solely on the things we’re banning and blocking, spend time on what we’re building toward: more energy to affordably, securely meet rising demand.

Audiences want climate action. What they reject is language that feels abstract, ideological, or disconnected from reality. As political leaders, businesses, and campaigners prepare for London Climate Action Week, they should dispense with the language of pathways, mandates, and technical targets in favor of vivid, human narratives that make the climate change consequences clear, the cause concrete, and the cure exciting.

Bold leadership has never been more necessary, and the latest data shows the right leaders can win solid majorities and rescue us from this dangerous decelerating cycle of ambition. Now is not the time to shy away from climate change. Now is the time to cement a new narrative.

The post Climate change isn’t a losing issue, but the way we talk about it risks losing the public appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Government has made economic growth, net zero, and tackling economic inactivity central to its Plan for Change. But if Labour is serious about delivering on all three, it must ensure that its plan to create thousands of new green jobs open up real employment opportunities for the communities at the heart of the transition.

With more than 4.5 million social homes in England and large, geographically concentrated portfolios, social landlords are uniquely positioned to drive high volume retrofit programmes.

That is why the publication of the Housing, Growth and Green Jobs Alliance’s new report matters.

Delivering for our Communities: Green Jobs and Skills in Social Housing sets out a clear case for why social housing residents must be at the heart of the UK’s transition to greener homes. The report argues that the shift to net zero cannot simply be about upgrading homes; it must also create long-term jobs, build skills pathways and unlock economic opportunity for local communities.

The debate around retrofit and household energy efficiency is often framed purely as an infrastructure challenge. But the reality is that Britain’s net zero ambitions will only succeed if we build the workforce capable of delivering them.

Evidence from our report demonstrates a growing demand for retrofit coordinators, insulation specialists, heat pump installers and multi-trade operatives needed to improve the energy efficiency of social homes. Yet industry organisations are already reporting major skills shortages in exactly these areas.

At the same time, many social housing residents remain economically inactive or unemployed, despite living in communities where varying scales of retrofit and green investment is increasingly taking place.

The opportunity in this area is obvious. The challenge is making sure that local people can benefit.

Our research shows that social housing providers alone plan to retrofit more than 70,000 homes and build over 67,000 new homes over the next five years. This represents one of the most significant local employment opportunities in the country.

Many housing associations are already delivering employability support, apprenticeships, work placements and construction-related training directly to residents. Survey respondents representing 800,000 homes reported supporting around 14,000 residents into employment and training in the last year alone, achieving nearly 12,000 positive outcomes[1].

But without a more coordinated national approach, there is a real risk that social housing residents will become excluded from the green jobs market developing around them.

Too often employment support, skills policy and housing development operate separately from one another. Funding for each remains fragmented, short-term and limited in scale. Without addressing these glaring issues, the Government will fall short in delivering its core manifesto promises.

To address this, the report calls for a much stronger focus on green skills and workforce development within social housing communities explicitly.  That includes stable multi-year funding for retrofit and employment programmes, a coordinated national workforce strategy for green housing skills, and dedicated support for residents furthest from work.

There is also a clear need to build stronger local partnerships between housing associations, employers, training providers, Mayoral Strategic Authorities and key government departments so that employment pathways are embedded directly into the delivery of housing decarbonisation measures.

Programmes such as JobsPlus have already demonstrated the value of delivering place-based employment support directly within social housing communities. Trusted, locally embedded support works because it can provide tailored help to each resident, helping to overcome certain barriers that more centralised schemes often struggle to address. This was unsurprisingly a constant theme throughout Alan Milburn’s recently published interim report on young people and work, which specifically noted that tailored employment support could “make the biggest difference” for young people out of work.

The same principle must now shape the nation’s household energy transition.

If the UK is to deliver warmer, more energy-efficient homes at scale, we need a workforce strategy that provides opportunities within the communities where a significant amount of this work is taking place.

Our message to Government is clear: providing social housing residents with pathways into ‘green collar’ jobs will be critical to turning ambition into genuine progress.

The post Building greener homes and stronger communities: why social housing residents must benefit from ‘green collar’ jobs appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Cocoa production is extremely vulnerable to rising global temperatures. The narrow equatorial band where cacao trees thrive is under increasing pressure from heat stress, shifting rainfall patterns and crop disease. Scientific projections suggest that major growing regions could become unsuitable for cocoa farming within the next thirty years, threatening a global supply chain worth tens of billions of pounds and the UK’s most cherished seasonal traditions.

The taste of chocolate is widely noted as having changed over the years as manufacturers get to grips with scarcity of ingredients, which has also led to the cost of chocolate increasing beyond standard inflation in recent years.

Gail Whiteman, Hoffmann Impact Professor and Founding Director at Climate Basecamp, said: “Chocolate is something we take completely for granted. Nobody opens an Easter Egg and thinks about fossil fuels accelerating the crisis. That’s exactly why this flavour exists. Petrol Egg isn’t just disgusting, it’s a symptom of what happens when we let the climate crisis run unchecked — cocoa prices quadrupled in 2024, bars are shrinking, and manufacturers are already replacing cocoa with substitutes. This is not a future scenario.”

The eggs are designed to provoke strong reactions, both in person and on social media. Climate Basecamp and NCIT expect the tasting challenge format to generate significant reach, with consumers filming their responses to the flavours and sharing them across platforms. The entertaining and shareable nature of the content is central to the campaign’s strategy: use humour and shock to cut through, then land the serious point about what we stand to lose.

Petrol Egg doesn’t explain climate change, it lets consumers experience it. By reframing cocoa through the language of flavour, ingredients and recipes, it turns a simple Easter egg into a guided journey through the real-world pressures climate change is placing on chocolate.

Rainn Wilson added: “I’ve eaten a lot of strange things in my life, but petrol-flavoured chocolate is a new low. Sadly, the idea behind it isn’t a joke. If we keep pushing the planet the way we are, the real future of chocolate could be a lot less sweet.”

The post Petrol-flavoured Easter eggs launched as Chancellor backs North Sea drilling appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In December 2025, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation guaranteeing every child the opportunity to take part in a residential outdoor education experience during their school years. This was a landmark moment for education policy — and one the rest of the UK should not ignore.

The Act treats outdoor learning — and in particular time spent away from home on residential trips — not as an optional extra, but as a core part of a child’s education. In practical terms, if properly resourced and funded, this means that children in Scotland will have the chance to spend at least four nights and five days learning outdoors, building confidence, independence and connection in ways the classroom alone cannot provide.

Politicians in Westminster must now show the same ambition.

The Scottish legislation confirms something which many of us who work with young people have long understood — outdoor experiences and residential stays are an essential part of a rounded education. Time spent outdoors supports children’s mental and physical health, strengthens relationships and often helps young people re-engage with learning in ways that the classroom alone sometimes cannot. These benefits are well evidenced and widely recognised.

One of the immediate benefits of residentials is time away from screens. While putting phones down can be difficult at first — the FOMO is real — we know that outdoor education can reduce reliance on phones and introduce balance. As the issue of young people and social media hits media and political debates, and the government launches a consultation on the impact of smartphones and social media on children and young people, it’s important to recognise the benefits of time out in nature. Being outdoors and doing activities does wonders for wellbeing. It increases confidence, connection and sense of belonging. That’s vital given researchers saythe strain on children’s mental health is ‘unprecedented’.

However, access to outdoor residential experiences remains deeply unequal. Too often, opportunity is shaped by where a child lives and how much their family earns. Over half of disadvantaged families are unable to afford trips and outings. For many young people, a school residential is their first time away from home and their first experience of the countryside. It should not be the case that, for some children, the chance to explore and learn outdoors remains out of reach. In a digital age, when many young people feel disconnected from each other and the world around them, these experiences matter more than ever.

Programmes like Generation Green have shown what is possible when access is supported by the government. Funded by Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and delivered by Access Unlimited — a coalition of not-for-profit youth organisations, residential providers, and protected landscape organisations such as National Parks — Generation Green connected more than 125,000 young people, from socially disadvantaged areas in England, with nature through structured programmes, residentials, visits, and trips.

Young people told us the experience helped their mental health, helped them to build friendships, and changed how they see themselves. Teachers reported that children returned to the classroom calmer, more confident and more engaged. Independent evaluation confirmed this and showed clear improvements in child wellbeing.

The challenge is ensuring consistent and fair opportunities across the country. Without a statutory commitment to outdoor learning, opportunities remain concentrated among those with the greatest resources, and provision becomes vulnerable to funding pressures.  With Generation Green funding now ended, there is a real risk of the access gap widening further.

Scotland’s new law offers a clear alternative and it is positive to see some MPs in Westminster supporting a similar law for England.By embedding residential outdoor education in legislation, it provides certainty, fairness and long-term stability. Teachers and school leaders are empowered, provision is protected, and every child benefits. Alongside this, the Government should ensure schools have the necessary funding to deliver outdoor education including ensuring programmes like Generation Green are re-established to ensure every child has an opportunity to switch off from social media and interact with the natural world.

Westminster now has the chance to show the same leadership. As curriculum and enrichment frameworks are reformed and guidance on smartphones and social media is reviewed, policymakers should use this opportunity to embed nature into every child’s education, guaranteeing access to high-quality outdoor learning, including residential experiences at primary and secondary level.

Outdoor education should be a right for every child, not a privilege.

ENDS.

The post Scotland’s new outdoor learning law offers the kind of real‑world connection young people need – the UK Government should follow suit appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

My timeline has become a chorus of voices insisting that net zero is to blame for Britain’s high electricity prices. Drill more North Sea oil, they say, and all will be fine. This is bemusing, because renewable energy is cheaper than gas, coal or oil. So what is actually going on?

Start with the basics. Electricity prices across most liberalised markets are set by gas. This is not a British peculiarity. It is how the system works almost everywhere.

Most electricity markets use what is known as marginal pricing, sometimes called “pay-as-clear”. Power plants bid into the market in order of their short-run operating cost. The last and most expensive plant needed to meet demand sets the clearing price, and every generator receives that same price, including the cheaper ones like wind, nuclear and hydro. The most expensive source dictates what everyone gets paid.

Gas plants tend to be that marginal unit because they are flexible. They can ramp up and down quickly, unlike nuclear, which is inflexible, or wind and solar, which are intermittent. So even if 60 per cent of a country’s power comes from renewables or nuclear, the final 5 to 10 per cent coming from gas means gas sets the price for the whole market. When gas prices spike due to geopolitics or supply disruption, electricity prices spike with them, regardless of how cheaply the wind was blowing that day. This dynamic is going to matter a great deal in the weeks ahead.

So much for the global picture. The question is why Britain is especially exposed.

The UK carries all the structural disadvantages of the global system, plus several of its own. Gas sets the marginal price in Britain more frequently than in many EU countries. The reasons are straightforward: limited long-duration energy storage, heavy reliance on gas for grid flexibility and an ageing nuclear fleet that has been plagued by outages in recent years.

The single biggest differentiator, though, is gas storage. The UK holds roughly 1 to 2 per cent of its annual gas demand in storage. Germany holds 25 to 30 per cent. The consequence is that British gas prices track spot market volatility with almost no buffer. Any supply shock translates into an immediate price impact on consumers and industry alike. Britain is, in effect, a gas price taker. It imports a large share of its gas, competes with Asia and Europe for LNG cargoes and has almost no capacity to ride out short-term disruption. As global LNG supply tightens and European storage comes under stress, this exposure is about to become very visible.

Grid constraints compound the problem. Britain generates much of its wind power in the north but consumes most of its electricity in the south. When the grid cannot move power efficiently, the system operator ends up paying gas plants to run in the south while paying wind farms to switch off in the north. Those costs get embedded in everyone’s bills.

The picture, then, is not complicated. Electricity prices are set by gas because gas is usually the last unit needed to meet demand. Britain is expensive because it is acutely exposed to volatile gas markets, has almost no storage and passes those costs straight through to consumers.

How did we get here? The UK gas system was built for just-in-time supply. When North Sea gas came onstream in the 1970s and continued through the 1990s, the country developed a model based on high domestic production, daily balancing through pipelines and rapid response from offshore fields. Large seasonal storage looked unnecessary.

Privatisation in the 1980s and 1990s then broke up British Gas, separating storage, supply and transport into distinct commercial entities. Investment decisions became matters of individual company profitability, not national strategy. Nobody was responsible for energy security in the round.

Seasonal gas storage is capital-intensive and has low utilisation. It makes money only during rare price spikes. In a liberalised market, that makes it financially unattractive. Unlike the electricity capacity market, there is no strategic gas storage obligation. If storage cannot justify itself on a narrow commercial basis, it does not get built.

The clearest illustration of this is Rough, which was Britain’s main gas storage facility and provided around 70 per cent of the country’s capacity. It closed in 2017 because of high maintenance costs, required safety upgrades and poor commercial returns. No replacement was mandated. Government chose not to intervene.

Countries like Germany, France and Italy treat gas storage as strategic infrastructure and impose storage fill requirements. Britain chose the opposite model.

Is this lack of investment the fault of net zero policy? No, and this is the point that the online discourse consistently misses. Britain did not stop investing in gas storage because of decarbonisation targets. The closure of Rough pre-dated net zero legislation. When investors explain why they did not build storage, they cite price risk and policy uncertainty, not climate commitments.

The real causes are structural. Privatised and fragmented ownership removed the incentive for strategic thinking. There was no mandate to maintain storage. There was no guaranteed revenue model. Short-term market signals dominated. And successive governments assumed that LNG imports would always be available and affordable. That assumption worked until it did not.

For Britain to break out of this cycle, there are really only two paths. Either we build significantly more gas storage to insulate ourselves from spot price volatility, or we change the pricing model itself and stop setting electricity prices on the basis of gas. Both are serious policy undertakings. Neither has anything to do with abandoning net zero.

The post Britain’s electricity bills are not a net zero problem. They are a gas storage problem. appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

As Labour approaches its second anniversary in Westminster, public sector reform remains one of the most prominent ambitions for this government. Ministers have repeatedly made clear that AI will sit at the heart of its efforts to modernise public services and boost productivity and economic growth, with its mission being to create public services that are genuinely AI-ready.

Yet if AI is to be the fundamental structure underpinning reform, the government must recognise that transformation of public services cannot be achieved without a workforce capable of using it responsibly and effectively in practice.

As a result, skills are the critical constraint on AI-led public sector reform.

In the government’s Blueprint for Modern Digital Government, it sets out a six-point plan for reform and commits to harnessing the power of AI for the public good by growing capability and capacity. Yet scrutiny from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has repeatedly shown that progress is being held back by persistent shortages in digital, data and technological skills.

Without an AI-skilled workforce, public bodies are often pushed towards long-term reliance on external suppliers. Many simply do not have the in-house capability needed to use and govern these systems internally which ultimately raises a question about their resilience and sustainability in a world of rapid AI expansion.

This is where apprenticeships can bridge this gap. Rooted in a work-based approach to learning, apprenticeships offer one of the most practical and scalable routes to developing the skills needed to achieve genuine public sector reform. They provide opportunities to upskill existing staff and create new talent pipelines across AI, data and cybersecurity, all while embedding learning directly into day-to-day roles.

We also continue to hear debates around the risk of outsourcing the workforce to automation and AI. Yet the risk should not be with the use of AI, but instead an organisation hiring someone with the right AI skills to streamline processes and utilise the full potential of AI. It is through apprenticeships that these skills can be achieved and the workforce can build their experience of understanding how AI can enhance human judgement as opposed to replacing it altogether.

Without AI capabilities being embedded across the public sector internally, services risk losing control over the technology they commission. For example, widening skills gaps can make it harder to adapt systems over time, undermining the very reform agenda AI is meant to support.

As we enter National Apprenticeship Week, policymakers must rethink how apprenticeships are positioned within the public sector reform ambitions. They cannot be seen as a standalone skills qualification and must, instead, be recognised as strategic infrastructure for organisational transformation.

If the government is serious about creating AI-ready public services, it must ensure its people are invested it as well as the systems they operate. That means supporting AI apprenticeships which have AI skills embedded, and empowering public sector employers to use apprenticeships as a mechanism for building long-term capability from within.

AI can play a transformative role in renewing public services, but only if the workforce is ready to deliver it. Skills are the foundation of reform, and apprenticeships are the strongest tools we have to build them.

The post If AI is at the heart of public sector reform, then skills must come first appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In today’s geopolitics, one would be forgiven for taking as fact that oil is power, and countries’ fortunes can rise or fall overnight based on access to supply and who strikes the deal.  

But as PM Keir Starmer visits China – home to 80% of the world’s solar manufacturing supply chain – there is another story to tell. 

Clean power is now cheaper and more scalable than ever.

Emerging economies seeking energy security and stability should prioritize home-grown clean energy over imported fossil fuel dependence.

As the former Managing Director General at the Asian Development Bank, I have seen how geopolitical shocks rapidly cascade through energy systems, worldwide. During the Iraq War and again in 2008, oil price spikes hit Asian countries almost immediately. Energy and transportation costs rocketed, straining public finances as governments turned to subsidies to keep economies moving.    

Today we face shocks on multiple fronts. The war in Ukraine is one stark example. It has driven oil price volatility and shown how centralized supply chains and vulnerable infrastructure can undermine national resilience overnight.

For political leaders across the developing world, whether in an oil rich nation like Venezuela or a fossil fuel importer at the mercy of aging, fossil fuel dependent grids and price and supply chain volatility, the outlook could feel stark.

But our energy landscape is very different from twenty years ago.   

The cost of utility scale solar has fallen around 90%. In Africa, where 600 million people still live without energy access, solar is rapidly becoming one of the most affordable and scalable sources of electricity. Renewables are now the cheapest source of new power in most markets and clean electricity is being deployed at a speed and scale that would have been inconceivable two decades ago.  

Granted, clean energy comes with its own risks, from critical minerals to processing and supply of components. Diversification, recycling and building domestic and regional capabilities can mitigate some of these risks. And none of them indicate that a retreat to outdated, fossil fuel-powered grids is the better pathway to an abundant, energy secure future.

Emerging economies are wide awake to clean energy’s new opportunities. Venezuela’s neighbours, Brazil and Chile are both advancing clean energy investments. Countries across Africa and Asia are exploring integrated mini grids and battery storage to reinforce energy grids. 

Global energy shocks have led to temporary spikes in clean energy investments before. The 1973 oil shock helped catalyse modern innovation and investment in alternatives, including solar and wind. Following the financial crisis in 2008, wind scaled rapidly, including record build years in some markets, even though tighter capital later slowed momentum.

But this is no flash-in-the-pan moment. I lead a 50-member alliance of governments, philanthropies and businesses committed to ending energy poverty and accelerating green economic growth. I speak daily with leaders from Nairobi to New Delhi and beyond, who are also actively scaling up clean energy.

In Africa, as part of the Mission 300 initiative of the World Bank and African Development Bank, 29 countries have signed national energy compacts, committing themselves to the necessary policies and reforms to attract investment that will scale up energy access. For many, renewables will be the fastest, lowest-cost option.

Governments are motivated, as we all should be, by the urgent need to tackle climate change, meet net-zero goals, and build climate resilience. 2024’s record heat waves, which spiked electricity demand and knocked out power supplies across Europe and beyond, and this winter’s storms in the US that have led to long outages, show how climate change threatens businesses, services, food supplies and families’ safety in both developed and emerging economies.

But beyond climate change, governments are also deeply aware of a simple fact: Clean energy represents the clearest route to an abundant, affordable and more secure future.

It is time to decouple economic stability from dependence on expensive, polluting diesel generators or outdated, unreliable fossil fuel-powered grids. Today’s resilience and security is found in diversified energy systems based on affordable, domestically produced clean power.

The post Energy sovereignty is the new security appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

James Beverley is an associate partner at leading property consultancy Fisher German.

He is a Chartered Town Planner and a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, with over a decade of professional planning experience in the private and public sectors.

James specialises on the promotion of strategic scale development including residential and employment land, including engagement with emerging Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans and the submission of planning applications.

He represents a wide range of clients, including landowners, land promotors and housebuilders, for both regional and national firms.

Fisher German delivers an exceptional range of services to an enviable client base across a national office network.

As we stand on the threshold of significant reform to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), it is both an exciting and challenging time for the planning profession.

At this juncture, it remains difficult to predict exactly how much of the proposed changes will be reflected in the final published version.

History tells us that political consultations often result in diluted outcomes, especially when met with resistance. The infamous ‘mutant algorithm’ episode of 2020 serves as a stark reminder, though the political landscape has shifted since then, and we are yet to see similar levels of opposition under the current Government.

Change, when thoughtfully managed, can be a catalyst for progress. Yet uncertainty tends to breed delay, a reality Labour will be acutely aware of given the risk it poses to their ambitions for a fundamental shift in housing delivery. The need to avoid unnecessary delay is paramount if manifesto pledges are to translate into tangible outcomes for communities across the country.

The Government’s proposal to introduce substantial amendments to the NPPF at this stage is a bold move.

Such seismic shifts inevitably cause disruption, particularly for applications already in the pipeline. The new NPPF will take effect immediately upon publication, requiring both officers and applicants to rapidly assess the implications for current and speculative proposals, many of which have been prepared under the ‘tilted balance’ principles.

The recognition of viability as a central concern in development is clear. By streamlining the process for modifying affordable housing obligations, the Government may be taking an unpopular but pragmatic approach, one that prioritises housing delivery in the face of complexity and challenge.

Should the proposed NPPF changes be enacted, the fundamentals of opportunity in development remain unchanged. Locations with acute housing need, especially those where demand has risen sharply since 2024, will continue to offer scope for innovation, particularly where supply has persistently lagged behind.

The most compelling new opportunity lies in the Government’s approach to sites near well-connected railway and tram stations.

Essentially, the draft NPPF proposes that land adjacent to train stations with a reasonable level of service, in key travel to work areas, are essentially a default ‘yes’, with the Council needing strong reason to say ‘no’.

This applies in rural areas and the Green Belt, thus can create new high growth corridors – akin to the original Metro Land around London when the London Underground was first developed.

I think it has clear potential, but there needs to be integrated planning with train companies so coordinated rail-based growth can be fully supported by continued services or increased and improved services to meet a rising demand.

The Government has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting small and now, medium-sized sites, as part of the drive to bolster SME housebuilders.

There is currently a requirement for Council’s to deliver 10% on small sites and my experience is most plans do not do this.

There is a further risk that the SME market will not deliver this, which means we risk translocating supply from the large housebuilders to the smaller, which may reduce delivery if they can’t step up.

The SME market does need support and diversifying supply should lead to better market absorption and provide new, bespoke products.

My view would be to incorporate the 10% small sites allowance (and now potentially a further 10% medium), and ensure that this is taken from the windfall allowance before reducing large sites which the market also desperately needs.

The planning landscape is shifting, and with it comes both challenge and opportunity.

The Government has set a massive target of creating 1.5 million new homes in this parliamentary term and it is vital there are no barriers to planning if this is to be achieved.

The post Reflections on the proposed NPPF Changes appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

If this Labour government is serious about getting Britain working again, it has a readymade solution: funding the existing JobsPlus scheme on a long-term basis and looking to expand its success more widely across the UK.

Run as a pilot across ten communities in England, JobsPlus is doing what years of centralised employment schemes have struggled to achieve, namely, helping economically inactive people move into sustainable work within their local communities.

JobsPlus provides support directly in social housing neighbourhoods meaning on-site employment support, community-led engagement, and financial incentives can be offered and targeted towards those who need it. It is local, trusted, and effective.

The results speak for themselves, more than 1,000 residents have already engaged with the programme, with over 270 people moving into work.

These numbers represent people who have been written off by the system, now building confidence, skills and a stable wage.

81% of participants were out of work when they joined the programme. More than a third had caring responsibilities, over a quarter had a long-term health condition, and one in four were aged 16-24.

The importance of this is clear. This government’s ambition of an 80% employment rate cannot be achieved without reaching people who are furthest from the labour market.

Research from the Learning and Work Institute shows that hitting this employment target could deliver £23 billion economically, improve public finances by £8 billion, and widen opportunity across the country. To meet these national targets, local solutions must be a critical focus.

The Get Britain Working White Paper emphasises the use of locally led integrated support that joins up work, health and skills.

We have already seen encouraging steps, such as the expansion of Connect to Work and the co-location of employment advisers in GP surgeries. JobsPlus complements these reforms by embedding employment support directly within communities that will be essential for success.

Long-term evaluations of JobsPlus in the United States show improved employment outcomes for social housing residents, with benefits still demonstrable up to 20 years. In the UK, the interim evaluation by the Institute for Employment Studies points to positive early impacts, including increased employability, confidence, skills and improvements in mental health and wellbeing.

However, for the impact of JobPlus to be fully realised, it needs to be backed by a long-term funding agreement.

Currently, the DWP has in place a short, three-month funding extension beyond March 2026. Whilst this is welcome, securing funding on a long-term basis is vital. It is the only way the excellent work in reconnecting individuals who have disengaged from the labour market across our communities can continue and be enhanced.

It is vital that we avoid uncertainty. Any concerns over the continuation of the programme will lead providers to consider winding down activity early, undermining the outcomes the programme was designed to deliver. In partnership with government, social housing providers need to work together to avoid a stop-start approach is not just inefficient but damaging. Tackling economic inactivity and rebuilding trust in employment support takes time, particularly in communities that have seen initiatives come and go.

JobsPlus was originally intended to run as a five-year programme, allowing proper delivery, learning and evaluation. The final evaluation of JobsPlus, due in spring 2026, will explore the future rollout of the programme. Ending the programme early would tell communities that stability is conditional and success is no guarantee of long-term existence.

JobsPlus is a proven, practical model that works alongside national reforms to deliver real change. DWP has an opportunity to be bold – to back JobPlus for the long-term, to effect transformational change in communities across the country, and to expand the scheme so that more individuals can benefit.

If Ministers want to turn ambition into action, they should commit to JobsPlus for the full five years, and then beyond – making the scheme a real UK employment support success story across all regions and communities.

The post Getting people back into work across local communities: why it is vital JobsPlus continues appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

For Dodds, that pressure is the point. He sees Formula E as a compressed version of the challenge facing governments and industry as electrification scales, particularly in urban Europe.

What should governments be learning from Formula E?

“We’re effectively running electrification at the limits,” Dodds says. “Tight energy budgets, huge power demand, heat, packaging constraints and absolutely no room for failure. That’s a pretty good proxy for the real world as EVs move into dense urban use.”

The lesson he returns to first is efficiency. “In our Championship, success comes from extracting the most out of a fixed amount of energy. That transfers directly to road cars. Better efficiency means smaller batteries, lower costs, less weight and less pressure on raw materials and the grid.”

Policy, he argues, often over-indexes on headline range figures. “If governments rewarded efficiency across vehicles, charging and the wider system, you would probably deliver more value in everyday driving.”

Charging is the second lesson. Formula E now runs ultra-fast charging in a competitive environment, which exposes weaknesses quickly. “Reliability, repeatability and integration are what make a charging system work. Our PIT BOOST system shows very high-power charging can be done safely and consistently, but only if the whole system is designed properly. That applies directly to public charging infrastructure.”

This is why Dodds talks so much about race-to-road transfer. “Formula E compresses development cycles. Manufacturers are here because those learnings feed back into the cars people drive every day.”

Is UK policy keeping pace with 2035 ambitions?

On the UK framework, Dodds is measured. “There is a lot to welcome. The ZEV mandate gives manufacturers a clear trajectory. Certainty matters because vehicle programmes and supply chains are planned years out, and that certainty unlocks investment.”

The pressure point, in his view, is delivery. “Charging coverage is improving but remains uneven, especially for people without off-street parking. Grid connections, planning delays and local capacity are often the real constraints. The technology itself rarely is.”

Politics adds another layer of risk. “Mixed signals undermine confidence for consumers and investors. The transition works best when government and industry are aligned and removing barriers together, rather than shifting dates or changing tone. Alignment supports delivery against targets.”

Racing in city centres, working with politics

Formula E’s choice to race in city centres forces a different relationship with political stakeholders. “You’re asking Prime Ministers, Mayors, councils, police and transport authorities to make a complex operation work in a live environment. That only functions if there is trust.”

Those conversations move quickly beyond sport. “Cities want to understand legacy, how it fits with transport plans, air quality goals, skills and community impact. They scrutinise footprint, logistics and disruption, and that’s reasonable. It’s pushed us to be more disciplined around freight, energy use and operations.”

Attitudes vary by market. Some cities see Formula E as part of an innovation and mobility story, others want hard evidence of economic benefit and public support. “What unlocks progress is competence and transparency. Once that’s established, relationships tend to shift from permission to partnership.”

Is motorsport overlooked in national policy?

“Often, yes,” Dodds says. “Motorsport sits between sport, manufacturing and technology, so it can fall between policy areas. That’s a mistake, especially in the UK.”

The UK’s motorsport cluster concentrates engineering talent, high-value jobs and exportable expertise. “It’s also a live testbed for electrification, software and power electronics. When those capabilities are recognised as part of the innovation economy, rather than treated purely as entertainment, their value becomes obvious.”

For a government looking to support advanced manufacturing and net zero delivery, Dodds argues the tools already exist. “Motorsport does much of that work already. It just needs to be viewed through the right lens.”

Trust, division and the EV transition

The EV transition, Dodds says, is judged through everyday experience. “Cost, charging access, reliability and resale value matter, as does whether the transition feels fair.”

Formula E’s role is to make the technology visible and credible. “It shows electrification as high performance. Fans see rapid charging, energy management and battery durability under extreme conditions, then connect that back to road cars.”

Crucially, he does not see the audience breaking along political lines. “Most people come for the racing first and become interested in the technology almost by accident. That’s a useful place to be. It builds confidence in electrification without turning it into a culture-war issue.”

In a debate often dominated by targets and timelines, Dodds offers something more practical. Run the system hard, expose the weaknesses early and learn fast. It is a lesson governments may want to take seriously.

The post Running electrification at the limit: Jeff Dodds on what Formula E teaches government appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

History will not be kind to the European car industry of the 2020s. European OEMs sold their souls, and their IP, to gain access to the hugely profitable Chinese market in the early 2000s. China demanded that access be granted through local production in 50:50 joint ventures, arrangements that eventually gave way to Chinese companies such as BYD, Geely, SAIC and BAIC. Those firms learned the art and science of car making from European partners while concentrating their domestic market on EV, or NEV, technology.

China mastered EV technology and went on to dominate the supply chain. In its home market, EVs became desirable and the Chinese consumer stopped buying Toyotas and Mercedes, turning instead to domestic brands which by around 2020 offered better technology and stronger EV products. By 2025, China was no longer “Treasure Island” for European manufacturers who had been slow to adopt EVs and therefore failed to appeal to Chinese customers.

European legislators were equally slow to move towards EV mandates at home. Oil, gas and automotive lobbies worked to protect their leadership, and their self interest, in internal combustion. Some OEMs were openly sceptical of EVs, preferring to back ICE or hydrogen technologies. Manufacturers became complacent and politicians acted as their puppets. Pressure to decarbonise did build, leading to uneven EV adoption across Europe, but with a general direction of travel towards full EV adoption by 2035, and by 2030 in the UK.

If you want to kill an industry, follow the EU playbook. After years of pursuing an ICE phase-out by 2035, the EU now appears to be choosing the worst possible outcome under pressure from panicked OEMs. A so-called phased approach would require only 90 per cent EV adoption by 2035, while allowing ICE to continue beyond 2040, most likely through synthetic fuels.

This is presented as protecting the industry and giving Western manufacturers time to catch up. In reality, it does the opposite. First, it removes urgency from EV adoption and from the search for genuine areas of leadership. Second, it creates vast manufacturing complexity. Carmakers are forced into compromised vehicles, constrained by CAPEX limits or by platforms that must awkwardly accommodate both ICE and EV technologies.

Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers will continue to excel in EVs. They will keep advancing the science and addressing weaknesses such as battery energy density and cost. EVs, even without their next generation technologies, already represent a compelling proposition. They are cheaper and more reliable to buy than ICE vehicles, far cheaper to run, enjoyable to drive and potentially CO₂-free in operation. They integrate with infrastructure, becoming not just transport but decentralised energy storage. For light vehicles, EVs are an inevitable solution. Alternatives such as synthetic fuels may find niche applications, but EVs will dominate, and EU legislation will have opened the door to Chinese leadership.

The question, then, is whether the UK will follow the EU, in the irony of net zero opponents taking their lead from Brussels, or whether it will exercise the implied freedom of Brexit. In truth, the UK is likely to feel compelled to align with the EU, in part because it no longer controls its car industry. But an alternative exists, a bold one that will draw criticism from all sides.

That alternative is for the UK to hold its 2030 and 2035 commitments and position itself as a European laboratory for EV adoption. In return for low barriers to entry, it would follow the model of Thatcher’s Britain in the 1980s and China in the 2000s, actively collaborating with China. It would encourage, and where necessary compel, Chinese investment into UK car and battery manufacturing. Today, China does not view the UK as an obvious destination for investment. Repositioned as an EV laboratory, with low barriers to entry and the same advantages that attracted Japanese firms in the 1980s, English law, language and education, that could change.

I advocate for the latter course, while planning for the former. I hope that during the Prime Minister’s forthcoming visit to China, he takes a front-footed approach to bringing Chinese investment into the UK.

The post Britain Must Choose. Follow the EU or Lead the EV Future appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The circular economy is often talked about in relation to tackling climate change, but in 2025 it has become an economic solution too. The second-hand market is now performing a vital function in helping households stay afloat: keeping essential goods affordable and opening up new ways to earn. As a platform used by millions, Gumtree has a front-row view of how this shift is shaping consumer behaviour and why it should matter to policymakers.

That shift is most clearly felt in the place where costs hit hardest and feel most personal: the home. Furniture is essential but expensive. According to the ONS, the price of new household goods has risen by 15% since 2022, so it is no surprise that families are looking elsewhere for affordable ways to furnish the spaces that shape their daily lives. Gumtree’s new Home Index: Furnishing Britain offers one of the clearest pictures yet of how people are adapting and why policymakers should pay attention.

The data shows that the second-hand home economy is expanding quickly. Gumtree’s Home category listings have grown by more than 11% in the past year, reflecting a surge in demand from households seeking value. Buying second-hand furniture on Gumtree typically saves around 20% compared with purchasing new. Those savings are incredibly welcome as households feel the squeeze.

Yet this story is not only about what people are buying. It is also about how they are earning. Gumtree is seeing a steady increase in repeat sellers – people listing five or more items each month as a way to bring in extra income. In a difficult economy, second-hand marketplaces are becoming a platform for micro-enterprise, giving individuals a simple, low-barrier route to support their household budgets.

None of this works without trust. Safe, responsible trading is the foundation of a healthy second-hand economy. That is why Gumtree continues to invest heavily in moderation, user guidance and partnerships with consumer safety organisations. But responsible behaviour also needs to be matched by responsible competition and here, government has a critical role.

As the UK begins implementing the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, ministers must ensure that platforms which prioritise safety, transparency and user protections are not disadvantaged by tech giants able to hard-wire their own services into dominant ecosystems. Fair competition is essential if consumers are to have real choice and confidence in the market.

At the same time, policymakers should recognise the broader economic resilience generated by second-hand marketplaces. There is a clear opportunity to help more people participate confidently and safely: through community-based digital skills programmes or small-scale local pilots that teach people how to list items, price goods or spot scams. By empowering more people to sell and buy online, government can boost household incomes and expand access to affordable essentials.

If ministers are serious about boosting household resilience and building a circular economy that works for everyone, they must get behind responsible online marketplaces in a meaningful way. The second-hand economy is where millions of people are making ends meet. It is time policy caught up.

The post The real opportunities from second-hand marketplaces have yet to be unlocked appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Councillor Stephen Conway, Leader of Wokingham Borough Council

On the 17^th December we should hear about the long-awaited provisional Local Government Funding Settlement. The future doesn’t look good for local authorities like mine in Wokingham. For the last decade we have done things right, we have grown our council tax base, built housing, and supported successful businesses to grow and thrive.

Our high-street is vibrant and boasts a variety of independent and chain businesses providing everything our residents need. Sadly, that means we are now looking like we will lose out, the people of Wokingham will lose out.

Local authorities across the country have struggled over the last decade, of every colour and at every tier. No one working in local government can fail to recognise the hard work and stress that have gone into continuing to deliver amazing results against the odds in some cases. Thriving communities and preventative programmes diverting the most at risk from demand-led services – we have done it alongside rising demand. But cost pressures and funding are against us; as inflation in local authority costs greatly exceeds the headline level, and the costs of temporary accommodation and children’s services rise at an alarming rate, it is our non-statutory services that will be put under still more pressure.  In Wokingham I know exactly what will be at risk, just as in your own boroughs you know what will happen if a real terms loss of funding is forced upon you.

This is a situation that may only be made worse now by the surprise implementation of three year Recovery Grant which appears unjustifiable. Calculated on the outgoing imperfect basis of the 2025/26 Deprivation Calculation the Recovery Grant eschews the Fair Funding Formula and worsens the situation we now face. For those who will not get it the situation will only deteriorate over the three-year span of the Recovery Grant. We know this will make things worse in Wokingham and so many other places, we do not want to see that and the 17^th December represents a vital date for local government.

That is why we formed the Funding Floor Group – calling for a reliable 4% annual increase in funding because without it local authorities are at risk of going backwards. A floor for every tier-one local authority would prevent the cuts we all know we would have to make if we received a real-terms cut in funding. This isn’t greed or jealousy it is because we want to protect what we have achieved. It isn’t a criticism of government that their aims and agenda are wrong, but it is a challenge to them to be clear that what they look like they are proposing is to drive cuts in non-statutory services.

By bringing in a funding floor, local authorities will be protected. It is a simple change that does not require rewriting formulas or shifting government ambitions. It is only a commitment that no council should be forced to go backwards. A funding floor would reinforce the government’s commitment to the missions it set out at the General Election by providing stability at a time of rising pressure. Most importantly, it would reduce the risk of councils being pushed to the brink. A stable, inflation-proof settlement is the best safeguard we have against further Section 114 notices, something none of us wants to see.

Before it is too late, get in touch with your MP and ask them to put pressure on Alison McGovern MP and Steve Reed MP to protect local authorities, we aren’t asking for extra money, only to stand still against inflation. Join us in fighting for residents.

The post Local Authorities Need a 4% Funding Rise Or Risk Going Backwards appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Employment Rights Bill presents an opportunity to strengthen protections for workers. It also carries risks that must be addressed to safeguard jobs, investment, and operational viability across sectors. If we don’t strike the right balance, the practical implications for agencies, businesses and temporary workers are significant and could heavily undermine any positive outcome.
Throughout my time working in the recruitment industry, I’ve seen first-hand how industries respond to profound change – from political upheaval and regulatory shifts to economic shocks, pandemics and wars, these challenges frequently compound each other. Their impact goes beyond headlines or debate panels; they touch livelihoods and leave a lasting mark on communities and businesses alike.

Recruitment has always stood at the meeting point between those stories and the demands of business. Its task is simple but vital: to connect people to work. More than a million people in the UK do their jobs through recruitment agencies. Some choose flexibility. Others take it as a step toward something permanent. Behind every placement is the quiet, often unseen work of agencies, that match people to opportunity.

The Employment Rights Bill aims to make work fairer and more secure, and this is a welcome step. By reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, the government has strengthened protections for workers while avoiding the potential disruption of day-one rights. This approach balances worker security with employer certainty, giving businesses the clarity needed to plan and invest confidently. It also signals a government that listens, engaging with employers during the policymaking process to find practical solutions that protect workers without undermining growth. The result is a framework that supports jobs, investment, and economic stability.

There is broad agreement that the Bill is moving in the right direction. But the details matter. And as discussions continue, there remain areas where the balance is not yet right and important questions remain unresolved – areas where we need policymakers to stay actively involved in shaping the legislation.

Guaranteed hours should match how sectors operate. Seasonal and flexible industries like agriculture, retail, hospitality, manufacturing, and events need targeted exemptions. Employment businesses should manage hours across our clients – the hirers.

We have called for a minimum six-month reference period, as this more accurately reflects typical work patterns than 12 weeks and aligns more closely with international economies. While pushing for alignment across the system may be ambitious, it remains the most effective way to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers. Clear thresholds should define the minimum weekly hours that trigger obligations.

Advance notice for shifts also requires clear practical rules. In care, retail, and logistics for example, demand changes daily. A fixed notice period for shifts and to cancel shifts could create new problems. Workers should receive notice as soon as shifts are confirmed. That keeps flexibility without removing protection.

In line with the Government’s plans to Keep Britain Working, Statutory Sick Pay should protect workers without inviting duplicate claims. A short waiting period or tailored process for agency workers would balance both sides.

The UK’s flexible labour market is a key strength. Recruitment drives growth, cuts unemployment, and offers choice. The sector contributes £44.4 billion to the economy, more than the legal services industry. In this context, policy should safeguard flexibility while improving worker stability. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s Voice of the Worker campaign shows temporary work is often a positive choice, with 79 percent citing flexibility and over two-thirds reporting better work–life balance. These benefits should be recognised and supported.

The recruitment industry stands at the centre of change. It connects talent to opportunity and helps businesses stay productive through uncertainty.

With clear rules and smart regulation, it will help build a fair, adaptable, and future-ready labour market for everyone.

The post Why getting the Employment Rights Bill Right for both Workers and Businesses Matters appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Over the past year, the government has set out clear ambitions to improve opportunities and wellbeing for young people – from expanding Mental Health Support Teams to renewed commitments to tackling inequality in education. Yet one group remains largely absent from this national conversation: the over 74,000 children who are living in Armed Forces families in the UK.

While life in the military can offer incredible opportunities, it also comes with unique challenges that can sometimes impact a child’s mental health and attainment at school. These young people experience a childhood shaped by frequent moves, sudden changes in routine and long periods without a parent at home. Despite this, the support they receive in schools too often depends on whether staff are aware of the unique pressures forces life brings – and many schools simply are not.

As a former soldier myself, I have seen these challenges firsthand. When my own daughter struggled during her father’s deployment, her school (brilliant though it was) had little guidance to draw on and no structured way to support her. That experience showed me how easily military children can become invisible in civilian settings, even when staff want to help. It was this gap that led me to found Little Troopers, and why our work remains so important today.

My experience reflects a wider national picture. The UK’s military children often follow their parents between bases and schools, some living in private accommodation far from barracks. Many face repeated goodbyes to a parent who is deployed away from home for months at a time. The support these children receive can vary dramatically. In some schools, teachers understand the unique pressures of forces life. In others, they simply haven’t been given the tools or training to recognise what military families face. The result can be a postcode lottery that leaves some children well supported and others navigating the emotional impact largely alone.

The foundations for change are already there. The Service Pupil Premium and the Armed Forces Covenant have strengthened the nation’s commitment to service families. More recently, the Department for Education published non-statutory guidance – a national framework setting out how schools can better understand and support service pupils. These are significant steps forward.

But guidance alone cannot create consistency. Schools need practical ways to put it into action. That is why we are launching our new Little Troopers Clubs: an accessible model that helps schools create a familiar and supportive space for military children. The clubs use a mix of online and physical resources which we are providing for free to help children settle quickly and feel understood. Crucially, they offer continuity. If a child moves from one end of the country to the other, they can walk into a new school and find the same structure waiting for them.

To build on the progress already made, the government should strengthen and embed its new framework so that military children across the country can benefit from consistent in-school support. That means encouraging schools to adopt practical pastoral approaches – such as the Little Troopers Clubs – as part of their duty of care. It also means raising awareness so that every school, whether it has one service child or fifty, understands the challenges these children face and feels equipped to support them.

We ask a great deal of our Armed Forces families, so we have a responsibility to ensure their children do not feel invisible in the place they spend most of their day. With clear guidance and a commitment to consistency, no child’s wellbeing should depend on a postcode. We have the framework, now we can make it work – for every little trooper, wherever they move next.

The post Ending the postcode lottery for Britain’s military children appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In the last year alone, the NHS spent more than £800 million on legal fees relating to clinical negligence claims, with £620 million paid to claimant lawyers. The legal fees for lower-value claims were almost four times higher than the compensation awarded (1), underlining how the system is increasingly disproportionate and unsustainable.

The MDU’s letter stresses the need to introduce Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC) for lower-value claims, a long-promised measure that could save upwards of £50 million a year (2). Although the scheme was due to be implemented in April 2024, it has been stalled due to ‘outstanding issues’ and has seen no progress since.

Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last week, the Department of Health and Social Care confirmed that further plans around how they tackle clinical negligence costs rest on the findings of David Lock KC’s review, completed over the summer and currently with Ministers. The MDU has called on the Government to publish the recommendations of the review in full.

Dr Matthew Lee, CEO of the MDU said: “The MDU has been sounding the alarm bell on the cost of clinical negligence for years, particularly around rising legal costs. We’ve written to the Chancellor because the Budget offers a real opportunity for this Government to take decisive action and halt the eye-watering sums the NHS is paying out in legal fees.

“Those harmed by negligence must receive appropriate compensation, however it cannot be right for legal costs to far outweigh these awards.  Action needs to be taken to keep this money within the NHS to support patient care and frontline services, which is what the UK taxpayer expects.”

The MDU is also calling on the Government to amend Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which requires courts to calculate compensation based on private healthcare costs rather than NHS provision. If claimants then choose to receive restorative treatment on the NHS, it can result in the health service effectively paying twice.

Dr Matthew Lee added: “Our view is simple – this is a historic anomaly that must be addressed. As it stands, the NHS risks paying twice in some cases: once to settle claims, and again if the claimant seeks remedial treatment via the NHS.

The post MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’ appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The case is known as JR87, and the original judgment in the High Court of Northern Ireland in 2022 was that ‘religious education and collective worship are not conveyed in an objective, critical, or pluralistic manner in Northern Ireland [schools].’ However, the Northern Ireland Department of Education appealed at the Court of Appeal last October. It ruled that while the RE curriculum was not objective, critical, or pluralistic, this was not sufficient to conclude there had been a breach of human rights law as this didn’t amount to indoctrination. The Court also ruled that the right to withdraw was not stigmatising. Northern Ireland Humanists intervened in the case.

The father and child appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which has now ruled that a curriculum not being ‘objective, critical, or pluralistic curriculum’ and its being ‘indoctrinating’ are ‘two sides of the same coin’. The Court also ruled that the right of withdrawal is clearly stigmatising in a context where no other children are withdrawn. Parents having a ‘reasonable apprehension’ of such stigma is ‘sufficient’ to mean they do not have to have to have actually withdrawn their children and found that stigma does indeed occur.

RE curricula must be objective, critical, and pluralistic

The ruling requires that RE curricula should not proselyte or indoctrinate, and that parental right of withdrawal alone from RE and collective worship is not a sufficient justification for having a non-objective, uncritical, or non-pluralistic syllabus.

RE in Northern Ireland is almost entirely Christian, with only one module on ‘World Faiths’ at secondary school level. The core syllabus was written by the four big churches and starts with ‘LEARNING OBJECTIVE 1: THE REVELATION OF GOD’.

Unlike RE in the rest of the UK, there is rarely inclusion of humanism, despite the growing population of non-religious people in NI, particularly amongst younger people. Northern Ireland Humanists has argued that RE and school assemblies should reflect the diverse beliefs of the population, both religious and humanist.

Mandatory Christian collective worship ruled discriminatory

Northern Ireland Humanists’ parent organisation Humanists UK has campaigned for over a decade to repeal the mandatory Christian collective worship requirement across all four nations of the UK. Parental withdrawal is not a sufficient solution to enforcing Christian worship on students, as it requires students being pulled out of important communal activities like other parts of school assemblies and often left with little alternative. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also called for the nations of the UK to allow students under the age of 16 to withdraw from collective worship without the need for parental consent.

The peculiar case of the UK being the only sovereign country to enforce mandatory Christian worship on students now has to be reexamined.

Northern Ireland Humanists Coordinator Boyd Sleator commented:

‘This judgment is a historic win for the rights of children in Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court has concluded that the RE syllabus is “indoctrination” and the right to withdraw from RE and mandatory collective worship is insufficient to deal with this.

‘This ruling should also prompt the governments in England, Scotland, and Wales to revisit the requirement for mandatory collective worship. We hope it is now repealed.’

The post Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Curriculum and Assessment Review recognises something many of us have long understood: education extends far beyond the classroom. So the government’s recent commitment to institute a new entitlement to enrichment activities  for pupils – including access to nature, outdoor and adventure activities – is a welcome step towards a more rounded and equitable education system.

For too long, opportunity has been uneven, with a child’s access to enrichment shaped by their circumstances – where they live, how much their family earns, and the opportunities around them. Forty per cent of white pupils eligible for free school meals take part in no enrichment activity at all. Meanwhile, nearly half of England’s most disadvantaged communities are located more than 15 miles from a National Park or protected landscape, often with poor public transport links. For many children, the chance to explore and learn outdoors never comes.

But the evidence is clear: time spent in nature transforms young lives. When children learn outdoors, they return to the classroom calmer, more confident, and more engaged, with a stronger sense of belonging and purpose.

Generation Green showed what is possible. Backed by Defra and delivered by Access Unlimited – a coalition of not-for-profit youth organisations, school residential outdoor providers, and protected landscape managers – Generation Green connected more than 125,000 young people, often from socially disadvantaged areas, with nature through structured outdoor learning, residentials, farm visits, and camping trips.

In the most recent second round of the Generation Green programme, more than 38% of participants had never been to the countryside, and 57% had never stayed overnight in nature. After taking part, 80% of participants said they would not have had such an opportunity without the funding. Independent evaluation by the University of Derby found measurable improvements in wellbeing, confidence and environmental understanding.

As one teacher put it, “Nature gave them confidence, peace and happiness. They found themselves outdoors.”

Outdoor learning delivers far-reaching benefits. It improves attainment, attendance and wellbeing; builds confidence, resilience and leadership; and inspires interest in green skills and careers. It also nurtures environmental responsibility from childhood. Despite this, access remains deeply unequal, and with Generation Green funding now ended, the gap is only set to widen.

This government’s commitment to establishing enrichment as an entitlement in education gives us a vital opportunity to change this, to build on the success of Generation Green and to promote core Labour values of opportunity and equality by making outdoor learning a guaranteed part of every child’s education. To succeed, this must become a clear, funded commitment, ensuring every young person can experience high quality outdoor learning, including at least one residential trip in both primary and secondary school.

Embedding outdoor education within the curriculum and the enrichment framework – supported by a comprehensive strategy on widening public access to nature, as promised by Defra – will help make access universal and sustainable.

If we want confident, capable learners who value community and have care for the world around them, outdoor learning must sit at the heart of education reform. In a digital age where young people increasingly spend their time online, being able to connect with society and nature is more important than ever.

A child’s postcode should never define their opportunities or potential. The Curriculum and Assessment Review gives us the chance to make that principle real and make outdoor learning a right, not a privilege.

The post The Curriculum and Assessment Review: Making Outdoor Learning a Right for Every Young Person appeared first on Politics.co.uk.