The G system was first established in 1980, following the invention of the mobile phone which allowed analogue data to be transmitted via phone calls.

5G (fifth generation) wireless network technology was introduced in 2019 as a significantly faster and more capable upgrade of its forerunner 4G.  5G offers download speeds up to 100 times that of 4G.  It is said to have the power to revolutionise daily lives, industries and public services by powering game-changing technologies such as virtual and augmented reality services and autonomous cars.

5G operates through a combination of cutting-edge network technology and the latest high-spec devices. Therefore, 5G networks can only be reached on 5G-compatible devices, and when within range of a 5G phone mast or tower.

The growth of 5G masts

Mobile phones are  in essence small radio transmitters and receivers, which operate using radio wave networks. To send or receive calls, a handset must be within range of a mobile phone mast: this is a fixed radio receiver and transmitter, whose antennae maximise network signal within that vicinity.

The roll out of a 5G network in the UK is now underway

The antennas must necessarily be high above the ground to avoid connection interference from the likes of buildings or trees. The taller the mast, the wider the network coverage, and the more phones that can be provided with a fast mobile signal.

When a call is made within range of a mast, the mast relays the call to a switching centre, either by underground cable or by microwave, which routes it to the correct destination.

There are currently in excess of 80 million mobile phones in use in the UK, all of which need to be within the range of a mast to function. Therefore, more base stations are needed in areas of high mobile usage. Masts may be only a few hundred metres apart in large cities, for instance, but several kilometres apart in rural areas.

In 2020, 5G coverage was still limited across the UK due to a limited number of 5G masts. However, the network is increasing rapidly as carriers are working to expand their services. EE was the first UK carrier to launch its 5G network in May 2019 and, by the end of 2019, had expanded to 50 towns and cities across the UK.

5G does not set out to ‘replace’ previous generations of mobile inter-connectivity, rather, it works alongside 3G and 4G networks to maximise connection speeds. Mobile network operators across the UK are currently undergoing a process known as ‘network densification’ as part of their 5G rollout strategy.

• In May 2021, the Queen’s Speech contained details of the government’s new Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill designed to further extend 5G mobile coverage and introduce new safety standards for digital devices.

The benefits of 5G Networks

The overall performance rate of 5G networks is said to be up to 100 times faster than that of 4G.

When 4G made its debut in 2009, its peak download speed was around 10 megabytes per second. By comparison, 5G offers speeds of between 10 and 20 gigabytes per second. Applying these figures, it would take around 2 minutes to download a 3-hour film.

On 5G devices, network latency (delay) decreases from 30 milliseconds to 1 millisecond, generating optimum conditions for online streaming and video calling. 5G also provides more reliable, low-latency connection to sensors, computers, and other devices.

5G also boasts a significantly higher data capacity, due to its ability to access new frequencies and wave spectrums. This, in turn, makes the device much more capable of handling simultaneous requests at once. 4G devices often experience delays due to the high volumes of network traffic and their inability to access higher wave frequencies.

Further advantages of 5G networks include a significantly higher quality of voice and video calls, faster and smoother online streaming, and the expansion of high-tech features such as real-time language translation.

Issues around 5G Masts:

1. 5G Mast locations

In July 2020, the government announced a series of law changes to increase the speed and efficiency of 5G rollout across the UK. Despite widespread objection, new laws reduced existing limitations on the location and height of phone masts.

5G Masts are taller than conventional mobile phone masts

The construction of new 5G masts was now permitted significantly closer to highways and main roads, and at heights of up to 50m (subject to approval from the relevant planning authority) – double the previous limit of 25m.

Existing 4G masts could also be strengthened to support 5G infrastructure, without the approval of local authorities, so to share the network between mobile operators. Finally, changes to planning regulations made it easier for cabinets containing radio equipment to be installed alongside phone masts, in order to enhance 5G coverage.

The government defended these planning reforms as a means of improving reliable mobile phone coverage throughout the UK – specifically targeting remote and rural areas which have traditionally received slower connections than elsewhere in the country.

The new laws were designed to support the government in delivering its £1 billion deal with mobile operators to create a ‘Shared Rural Network’, boosting productivity and investment in rural areas.

In September 2020, the government faced a legal challenge over its decision to push ahead with reforms to phone-mast legislation. Civil servants were accused of holding back critical scientific data on the issue, while the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was said to have not conducted a proper consultation on the decision.

Driving the challenge, Phillip Watts, trustee of EM Radiation Research Trust said: “While there is so much concern around health issues associated with 5G infrastructure, it cannot be right to give telecommunication companies carte blanche to invade our cities, towns, communities and residential streets with controversial technology.”

In March 2022, the government announced plans to amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, in a way that would further support the roll out of 5G, particularly in rural areas.

These plans allowed existing mobile masts to be upgraded to 5G without prior approval.  These measures allowed the width of the mast to be increased by 50%, and the height to be increased up to a maximum of 25 metres.  New masts could now also be built up to the height of 30 metres in unprotected areas, with buildings able to host smaller masts (up to 6m above the building height) without prior approval.

With 5G said to be important for the driverless car revolution, the government appeared particularly keen to encourage the use of building based masts near public roads so to improve mobile coverage for road users.

2. Health Worries

What are the Stated Concerns?
Ever since the first introduction of 3G masts in the early 2000s, concerns have been raised around their possible threats to human health. Concerns typically lie with the radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from telephone masts which, some argue, hold the potential to damage human DNA, cause oxidative damage, and disrupt cell metabolism.

In 2011, the World Health Organization furthered concerns in this area by defining radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Campaigners express concern that with radio frequency radiation, the higher the frequency, the higher the associated risk. Given that 5G uses frequencies of up to 18 times that of 4G, it is suggested that the potential health hazard would logically be higher.

How are these health Concerns rebuffed?
Dr Novella, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University in America, has said that opponents of high-frequency radio wave networks show tendencies to confuse hazard with risk. He claims that, “A loaded pistol is a hazard because theoretically, it can cause damage. But if you lock it in a safe, the risk is negligible”.

Instead, it is suggested that an abundance of misinformation has led onlookers to align radiation from phone masts with ionizing radiation; the damaging kind which is released from nuclear explosions. However, 5G operates at wavelengths using non-ionising radiation. As has been clarified by scientists and medical experts, radiation which is non-ionising is too weak to break chemical bonds and, therefore, to cause damage to DNA or human cells.

Further to this, all mobile and WiFI networks in the UK conform to strict regulations based on advanced research, scientific literature and public consultation. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) – a body scrutinizing the health risks of radio broadcasts – has declared 5G completely safe as long as all guidelines are followed.

The Commission has spent the past 7 years developing new guidelines into the safe use of 5G radio networks. It has stressed that previous guidelines – in force from 1998 – would have been sufficient for new 5G technologies, yet additional precautional measures  are now in place to acknowledge the higher frequency spectrums in operation.

In the words of Public Health England, ‘Independent expert groups in the UK and at international level have examined the accumulated body of research evidence. Their conclusions support the view that health effects are unlikely to occur if exposures are below international guideline levels’.

3. China and National Security

Amidst national security concerns, the government announced in 2020 that the phone company Huawei will be banned from the UK’s 5G network from 2027.

This decision was taken in response to the firmer actions being taken by the US, Australia and New Zealand, whose governments have issued a blanket ban on trade with this particular phone company.

These sanctions are founded in the fear that placing Chinese-operated technology in the heart of the UK’s 5G network could give China the capacity to ‘spy’ on, or gather data, from UK users .

The US authorities claim that China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, holds that organisations must “support, co-operate with and collaborate in national intelligence work”.   The US have said this could be used to justify intervention from state-sponsored hackers via the network. Speculations of state sponsorship have been denied by Huawei, which describes itself as a company “fully owned by its employees”.

Removing 5G equipment from existing networks is expected to delay the UK’s roll-out of 5G by 2-3 years while posing additional costs of up to £2 billion.

5G Conspiracy theories

Following the outbreak of coronavirus in 2020, a number of conspiracy theories circulated on social media, attributing the emerging covid 19 virus to 5G phone masts: a claim which remains unfounded and widely refuted.

The conspiracy theory was branded as “dangerous nonsense” by the Cabinet Minister, Michael Gove MP.

The body which represents the UK’s main mobile networks, Mobile UK commented: “There is no scientific evidence of any link between 5G and coronavirus. Fact. Not only are these claims baseless, they are harmful for the people and businesses that rely on the continuity of our services”.

Industry sources have suggested that these unfounded conspiracy theories resulted in vandalism and arson attacks on some 20 masts across the UK.

Quotes

“5G will be transformative for our country, but only if we have confidence in the security and resilience of the infrastructure it is built upon.” – Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden, 2020

“Ensuring as many people as possible, wherever they live in the country, have access to fast, reliable mobile coverage and digital connectivity is crucial to our levelling up vision” – Stuart Andrew, Housing Minister, March 2022..

“There are two types of radiation. Ionising is the kind that you get in hospital when you have radiotherapy. Non-ionising is what comes out of phone masts and TV towers. People get confused about adverse health effects. Cancer is not a recognised health effect as a result of exposure from masts, for example.” – Dr Richard Findlay, Society for Radiological Protection’s EMF and Optical Radiation Committee, 2020

“A considerable amount of research has been carried out on radio waves and Public Health England have concluded that exposures of radio waves to the public are well within the international health-related guideline levels that are used in the UK.” – Margot James, Former Digital Minster, 2019

“[The] government will support work to bust health myths over 5G, which WHO say poses the same risk as talcum powder and pickled vegetables. There is no credible evidence to back up concerns and huge evidence for the economic benefit of gigabit-capable networks.” -Matt Warman MP, UK Digital Minister, 2020

Statistics

Whilst 4G may have accounted for 66.6% of total mobile subscriptions in 2019; its share will decline over the forecast period to reach 50.9% by 2024 due to customer migration to 5G. GlobalData expects 5G subscriptions to account for 39.9% of all mobile subscriptions by 2024. [Source – Global Data, 2020]

By 2024, forecasts predict that there will be around 1.9 billion 5G subscriptions worldwide. [Source – Ericsson Mobility Report forecast, June 2019].

EE was the first network to launch 5G in the UK on May 30, 2019, followed by Vodafone on July 3 and O2 on October 17, 2019.

The post 5G Masts appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

A-Levels are properly referred to as the Advanced General Certificate of Education. They are one of the types of principal examination course studied by pupils in England, Wales and Northern Ireland immediately after the conclusion of compulsory education, usually between the ages of 17 and 18.  They are the principal entry requirements for most higher education courses.

Scotland has a different system altogether, with examinations called Higher grades and Advanced Higher grades.

A-Levels demand more individual, in-depth study than GCSEs and place greater emphasis on traditional academic and study skills.

A-Levels are typically studied for in Further Education Colleges, Sixth Form Colleges or school sixth forms, although adult learners can undertake A-Level courses in a variety of other settings. Most educational institutions set certain GCSE (or equivalent) qualifications as entry requirements to study for A-Levels.

The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Ofqual) is the regulator of qualifications, examinations and assessments in England and vocational qualifications in Northern Ireland.

Between 2015 and 2018, the government in England introduced a series of reforms to A Levels. These reforms moved them from a modular structure to a linear structure with exams at the end of the course.

Specifically the reforms reduced the coursework aspect in A Levels. They also reduced the number of available A Levels, eliminating options such as archaeology and home economics. AS Levels became established as a fully separate qualification, although they still encompass the first year of the full A Level content.

A levels have become far more exam based following the government’s 2015 reforms.

The A-level system – Pros and Cons

A-Levels have, since the 1950s, been held up as representing the “gold standard” of school educational attainment. As with GCSEs, continually rising pass rates – topping 95 per cent in 2003 for the first time – have led to claims that that gold standard has been devalued and that courses are becoming easier.

It is also alleged in many quarters, that some courses are clearly easier than others, and that this has led to a migration of students away from “difficult” subjects, such as mathematics, physics and modern languages, towards subjects that are perceived as easier. Official figures certainly show a trend of fewer candidates taking those courses that are regarded as “harder”.

A further concern has been an apparent increasing gap which has emerged between students at state schools and private schools. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance reported that A-Level results at comprehensive schools had remained relatively static, while private schools had made improvements. 15.7 per cent of all A-Level papers were awarded a grade A, but this rose to 31.7 per cent of private school entries. The controversy was fuelled further by the introduction of the new A* grade with exam results in 2010 suggesting that pupils in the independent sector were three times more likely to achieve an A* than their comprehensive counterparts.

Dumbed-down A-levels

The History of A Levels

Early Years
GCE A-Level and O-Level examinations were first sat in 1951, on the premise that students took one or the other. Until 1953, A-Level exams were graded only as a pass or fail, at which point a “distinction” grade was introduced. In 1963, a five grade scheme was introduced, with quotas for the allocation of grades: 10 per cent of candidates would receive an A grade, 15 per cent a B, 10 per cent a C, 15 per cent a D, 20 per cent an E, and a further 20 per cent would receive an O Level pass.

This arrangement persisted until the 1980s, with ongoing concern being voiced about the narrowness of many grade boundaries brought about by the quota system: in 1982, some subjects saw a B and a D separated by a margin of just 8 marks. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, a campaign to switch the system to a mark-boundary grading system was waged, which was finally successful in 1987. The O-Level pass grade was dropped this year, and replaced by the considerably narrower “N” grade, which signified a “near miss”.

1989 saw the introduction of the Advanced Supplementary or AS Level – not to be confused with the Advanced Subsidiary AS of today – in response to longstanding concerns that students were not receiving a sufficiently broad education in concentrating entirely on a few (typically three) A-Level subjects. AS was intended as a qualification of equal difficulty to A Level, taken at 18, but with half the content (and as such half the “value” for university admissions purposes). However, AS never really took off, a situation acknowledged in the 1996 Dearing Report, which proposed the current Advanced Subsidiary and A2 system.

A-Levels and the Labour Government (1997 to 2010)
In 2000, the new Labour Government published the outcome of its “Curriculum 2000” review programme, proposing a substantial overhaul of the existing A-Level system. In order to address concerns about the breadth of the curriculum, a new modular approach was introduced under which most students study four subjects with three “assessment units” each in their first year of study.

Completion of this AS stage can be a qualification in its own right, or else it constitutes 50 per cent of the marks towards the full A-Level. A2 units, undertaken in the second year of study, reflect the harder elements of the old A-Level syllabuses and contribute the remaining 50 per cent of the marks.

In 2002, it was alleged that exam boards had manipulated grades in order to ensure that the introduction of Curriculum 2000 was not seen to have led to “grade inflation”. A review, headed by Mike Tomlinson, the former Chief Inspector of Schools, ordered a review of grade boundaries – which required reconsideration of 90,000 students’ results.

At the time, Ron McLone of the OCR board complained that neither the DfES nor the QCA had given advice on how much harder A2 had to be than AS until the last minute. In the end, only a relatively small number of students had their results upgraded, but some did lose out on university places as a result of the problems, and confidence in the system was shaken. The crisis led to the sacking of the head of the QCA, Sir William Stubbs and the resignation of the Education Secretary Estelle Morris.

In response to the difficulties experienced with A-Levels in recent years, the Government set up the Tomlinson Review of 14-19 education. The final Tomlinson Report was published in October 2004 and recommended that A-Levels and GCSEs should be subsumed within a 14-19 diploma model education system. It proposed a four-level diploma system with students taking exams whenever they are ready. At the advanced diploma level there would be extra questions designed to stretch the very brightest and allow universities to distinguish between the top students.

Speaking immediately after the Tomlinson Report Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that A-Levels were here to stay.

In November 2006, the government announced plans to introduce an A* grade for A-levels from 2010. The government said it would also provide funding to ensure that one state school in each education authority offered the International Baccalaureate.

The year 2007 marked a quarter century of improving A-Level grades – reopening the debate on grade inflation. The government rejected claims that exams were getting easier, insisting this devalued the hard work of teachers and students. Independent research, however, has found students’ core skills are failing to improve in-line with rising exam grades. Higher education institutions have also been increasingly vocal in criticising the poor quality of many first year students.

Subsequently new A2 exams were designed to “stretch and challenge” the brightest students and the new A* grade first awarded in August 2010 requires candidates to achieve both a grade A on the A-Level overall and at least 90% or more across the A2 units.

Balls delays A-Level review to 2013

A-Levels and the Conservative/Coalition Government (Since 2010)
In March 2012, Education Secretary Michael Gove wrote to Ofqual outlining his concerns about the structure of A levels and proposed certain changes. Ofqual launched a consultation in the summer on the structure and assessment arrangements of A-levels.

Subsequently, in January 2013, Mr Gove outlined future changes to be made to A-level structure, including the development of new AS levels as a standalone qualification. He also confirmed that leading universities would be more closely involved in developing the content of new A levels, beginning with the subjects most commonly required for undergraduate study.

In reforming A-Levels in recent years, the government has striven, in its mind, to improve the integrity of A-Levels. Defending the changes, Michael Gove as Education Secretary, said, “Current A-levels do not always provide the solid foundation that students need to prepare them for degree-level study and for vocational education”, adding, “The modular nature of the qualification and repeated assessment windows have contributed to many students not developing deep understanding or the necessary skills to make connections between topics”.

According to Mr Gove, there was “clear dissatisfaction” among leading university academics about the preparation of A-level pupils for advanced studies and nearly three-quarters of lecturers reported having had to adapt their teaching approaches for under­prepared first year undergraduates.  The governments reforms were met with some objections by the teaching unions.

A-Levels and the Coronavirus pandemic (2020/21)
A further adjustment to the administration of A-Levels was made for the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 academic years in response to the coronavirus pandemic. With schools in England physically closed between March and June 2020, and between December and March 2021, it was announced that traditional A-Level exams for those academic years would not go ahead.

In the spring of 2020, the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson detailed how an Ofqual algorithm would modulate teacher assessed grades. Williamson repeatedly defended the algorithm arguing it was the only way to stop grade inflation.

However, the release of ‘standardised’ A-Level grades on 13 August 2020 generated widespread criticism of this algorithm from schools and colleges across the country.  In some schools, the awarded A-Level grades were up to 40% lower than the predictions given by teachers, with 3% seeing a decrease of two grades. Because the algorithm used previous school attainment as part of its calculation process, one student from a traditionally ‘underperforming’ school was more likely to be downgraded compared to another student of equal intelligence from a high-achieving school.

The Education Secretary Gavin Williamson came under significant pressure to announce that unmodified teacher assessed grades would be accepted. After a delay, Williamson committed to this U-turn announcing that he was ‘incredibly sorry’ for the distress caused to pupils.

Quotes

“The ending of the modular structure of A-levels, the de-coupling of AS levels and A-levels and other changes announced previously, such as limiting resits, are all profound reforms that should not be contemplated lightly. The fact that these changes are being taken forward in a cavalier, evidence-lite fashion, which is the norm for this Coalition Government, should be of deep concern to all those who are interested in a high quality, 16 plus qualifications system.” – Chris Keates, Former General Secretary of the NASUWT – January 2013

“It is of paramount importance that new A-levels command the respect of leading universities. Together, these changes will enhance the reputation of A-levels, better prepare more students for higher education, and ensure that competition for university places is fairer.” – Education Secretary Michael Gove – January 2013

End A-level ‘monkey business’ – report

The post A-Levels appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In the English education system, academies are publicly-funded schools which operate independently of local authorities, doing so in a framework which the government claims is designed to promote innovation and raise school standards.

Academies have greater autonomy than traditional maintained state schools in areas such as the delivery of the curriculum, setting staff pay and conditions, changing the length of the school terms and the school day, and determining their own uniform policies.

An academy trust that runs more than one academy is called a multi academy trust (MAT). Member schools operate under a single governance structure. Roughly two-thirds of academies are part of multi-academy trusts. The majority of multi academy trusts oversee five schools of fewer, but around 30 multi academy trusts oversee 26 schools or more.

In January 2022, nearly 4.65 million pupils attended academies and free schools in England, equating to 79% of secondary pupils and 40% of primary pupils.

The majority of secondary school children are now educated at academies.

Types of academies

Academy schools come in a variety of different forms, albeit a distinction can be made between existing schools that move to academy status, and entirely new schools (free schools).

Existing Schools – Academies
Most academies are existing schools that have converted from a previously maintained status (under the auspices of the local education authority).

Sponsored academies have usually been set up to replace under-performing schools. Sponsors are responsible for establishing the academy trust, the governing body, and for appointing the head teacher. Sponsors can come from a wide variety of backgrounds including businesses, faith communities, universities and individual philanthropists. Outstanding schools and academies may now also become sponsors themselves.

Converter academies are successful schools that have chosen to convert to academies in order to benefit from the increased autonomy that academy status is said to bring. This option was introduced in 2010 as part of the then Coalition government’s plan to broaden the academy programme.

University Technical Colleges (UTCs) are technical academies specialising in subjects such as engineering and construction. These are taught alongside traditional academic subjects, and ICT and business skills. UTCs are often sponsored by leading local businesses or local universities and strive to respond to local skills needs.

Studio schools are smaller schools that provide project-based practical learning alongside mainstream academic study. Students often work with local employers and follow a curriculum designed to equip them with specific skills and qualifications they will need for work or further education.

Free Schools
The academies programme also includes what are known as Free Schools. Free schools are actual whole new state schools, which operate in law, as academies.

The first Free Schools opened in September 2011. They are state funded, non-profit making, all-ability primary or secondary schools. Free schools are typically set up in response to demands from specific groups of local parents for better educational provision within their local community.

Free schools can be located in a variety of buildings, from offices to church halls. They have so far been set up by a wide range of groups including teachers, charities, universities, businesses, and faith groups.

The operation of academy schools

The ways in which academies operate, and how they typically differ from the maintained sector overseen by the local authority, are laid out below:

Curriculum
Where maintained mainstream schools must follow the national curriculum; academies don’t have to follow all aspects of the national curriculum and can chose to follow it in full or in part. Primary school academies do though still have to participate in national curriculum assessments (also known as SATs).

Since September 2020, all academies and free schools have been required by legislation to offer revised Relationships and Sex Education, and health education.

Management
Academies are run by individual charitable bodies called academy trusts. Local councils have little direct involvement in the management of academies.

Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) is responsible for inspecting the quality of education in all state-funded academies and free schools. It uses the same inspection framework as for maintained schools.

The operation of academies is further overseen by the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) which is an executive agency within the Department for Education. Complaints about academies are handled by ESFA, once a complainant has been through a school’s own internal complaints procedure.

Academies are also overseen by a series of Regional Schools Commissioners appointed by the Department for Education. Regional Schools Commissioners cover eight separate regions within England. They monitor academy performance, approve some strategic and management decisions, and intervene when academies are deemed to be under performing.

Regional School Commissioners also decide on applications from maintained schools that wish to convert to academy status, review applications from sponsors, and advise on proposals for new free schools.

Admissions
Academies have to comply with the Department for Education’s School Admissions code and the law regarding school admissions. The Secretary of State does though have the power to vary this requirement where there is a “demonstrable need”.

New ‘free faith schools’ are currently able to offer half of their places based on religious selection, but they must keep at least half of places open to all children, irrespective of their religious or non religious backgrounds. As is the case for maintained faith schools, if a faith academy has fewer applicants than places (i.e. it is undersubscribed) it generally has to offer a place to any child that applies, without reference to faith.

Teachers
Academy Trusts employ their own staff, whereas in maintained schools the local authority is typically the employer.

As part of their funding agreement with the Department for Education, some academies and free schools do not have to employee teachers with formal ‘Qualified Teacher Status’ (QTS). The opposite is generally the case for maintained schools.

This approach to teacher recruitment for academies is designed to free up an academy to employ professionals, such as scientists, engineers, musicians, overseas teachers, and university lecturers, who may be well qualified with a wealth of useful knowledge, but who lack the specific Qualified Teacher Status.

Funding
Funding for academies typically comes in three forms. Initial grants that are available for the feasibility, planning and implementation stage in establishing an academy. Capital grants that are available in relation to buildings. And then, funding provisions for the running costs of the academy, once it is open.

The Government has stated that “becoming an academy should not bring about a financial advantage or disadvantage to a school”. Academies therefore receive the same level of per pupil funding that is available at a maintained school. All academies are required to abide by strict financial rules in relation to financial management, control and reporting, as laid down by the Education and Skills Funding Agency handbook.

Academy sponsors, as well as companies and individuals related to academy sponsors, are allowed to provide contracted services to their sponsored schools, as long as this is provided ‘at cost’ in the case of transactions over certain financial limits.

General Provisions
As with maintained state schools, academies are required to follow the law and guidance on special educational needs and exclusions, and to collaborate and share facilities with other schools and the wider community.

What are advantages and disadvantages of academy schools?

The academies programme was controversial when it was launched and continues to be so today.

Why do schools become academies?
The academy programme retains a large number of supporters.  The Labour Peer, Lord Adonis, the programme’s original architect, has claimed that academies are the best way to “breach the educational Berlin Wall between private and state education”. Whilst the Conservative government has suggested that the large volumes of schools which have chosen to move to academy status, shows schools voting with their feet, recognizing the benefits possessed by existing academies, and demonstrating the success of the programme.

The central argument put forward for academy schools is that they provide head teachers and school leaders with the freedom to take the decisions which they feel are in the best interests of their own school.

Academies are able to set their own targets, curriculums, class-sizes, adjust salaries, and decide where funds are allocated within their schools. This is presented as the managerial lifeline that a struggling school needs in order to be able to improve its fortunes. To their supporters, academies are presented as a means of driving up educational standards in disadvantaged areas.

It is suggested that making the switch to an academy status provides the opportunity for schools to operate more like a business. It is argued that the autonomous management structure of academies supports internal accountability and drives up standards.

The introduction of outside financial expertise, such as a sponsor or larger academy chain, is said to allow the school body to focus better on education standards, whilst the academy management keep an eye on the budget. It is further suggested that those Multi-Academy Trusts that prove successful, will be able to grow and spread the benefits of their expertise across the education system, whilst those that are less successful will shrink.

Free schools have also been advanced as one solution, to generating extra school places, in those local areas where there is a shortage of school places.

Disadvantages of Academy Schools?
At the same time, the academy programme has also faced criticism from some teachers, parents and politicians.

Where the academy programme was originally initiated by the Labour government of Tony Blair, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party moved to variously characterize the programme as representing a step towards privatisation, a waste of money, selective, and damaging to the surrounding schools.

Speaking to the Labour Party Conference in September 2018, the then shadow Education Secretary, Angela Rayner, announced that a future Labour Government would “start by immediately ending the Tories’ academy and free schools programmes”. In contrast to the school based ‘autonomy model’ championed by academy supporters, Ms Rayner advanced the case for schools to be returned to democratic oversight of local councils.

In terms of specific criticisms, the academy programme has been said to create problems in terms of school places. For whilst local authorities retain the statutory responsibility to ensure there are enough school places for local children, they lack control over the number of places in academy schools.

It has also been argued that academies are specifically targeted by middle class parents, thereby denying access to the disadvantaged pupils they were intended to help. At the same time, it is suggested that academy schools possess the best facilities and attract the best teaching staff, something which in turn increases the chances of the remaining schools in a local area becoming so called ‘sink schools’.

Further concerns have also been raised around the ability of academies to employ teachers who are not formally qualified, and to vary teacher salary levels. Education unions have drawn attention to the remuneration levels of the Directors of several academy trusts, which they have suggested exceed those of some of the UK’s university vice chancellors.

Others have expressed reservations around the freedom of academies, particularly free faith schools, to disregard aspects of the national curriculum. This it has been suggested provides free rein to religious sponsors to teach topics such as creationism over biology.

The history of academies

Labour Government – 1997 to 2010
Academies were launched initially as City Academies by the Labour government in 2000. Andrew Adonis, who was a Downing Street education policy adviser at that time, and who subsequently became Lord Adonis and a Labour Cabinet Minister.  He is widely credited as the architect of the programme.

In a bid to tackle the high number of poorly performing schools, the Labour government had already established a Fresh Start scheme in which the weakest schools were closed and then re-opened under new management. This was not an unequivocal success and in May 2000 then Education Secretary David Blunkett said the Government had decided “a more radical approach” was needed and “substantial resources” would now be provided for the establishment of city academies.

The Labour leadership believed the experience of specialist schools and education action zones had shown that schools could benefit from involvement with non-governmental partners. Business, the churches and the voluntary sector were all courted as potential sponsors and partners for the new city academies, which would also “take account of the best lessons of City Technology Colleges and Charter Schools in the United States”.

The Education Act of 2002 provided for the prefix ‘city’ to be removed in order to enable schools in non-city areas to join the academy programme. The Act also provided for City Technology Colleges to become academies.

The first three academies opened in 2002; they were The Business Academy in Bexley, Greig City Academy and the Unity City Academy. The Business Academy, Bexley also became the first ‘all-through’ academy when a primary section was added in 2004.

By 2006 there were 46 academy schools in the UK. These included five former City Technology Colleges and five new schools. Of the 46 academies, 23 were in London. The National Audit Office reported that by October 2006, the academies programme, had cost £1.3 billion in capital and running costs.

The target at that time was for 200 academies to be open or in development by 2010. However, then prime minister, Tony Blair, announced that he wanted the programme to be accelerated and reach 400 academies – double the target – by 2010.

Despite speculation to the contrary, when Gordon Brown took over as prime minister in June 2007, he appeared equally enthusiastic, and pledged to continue the expansion of the academies programme. Writing in the Observer in 2008, Mr Brown said he had discussed with academy sponsors the possibility of “accelerating the expansion of our 400 planned academies as engines in disadvantaged areas for social mobility and social justice – not exclusive opportunities just for the few, but a new means of advancing opportunity for all”.

As it turned out, the number of academies rose from 83 in 2007 to 203 by 2010, just slightly over the original 200 target.

Government Policy – Since 2010
The new Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government elected in May 2010 came into power with even more ambitious plans for the academy programme.

The newly appointed Education Secretary, Michael Gove, wrote to every head teacher in England saying he intended to open up the programme to all schools, including for the first time, primary and special schools.

Mr Gove said the Government was “genuinely committed to giving schools greater freedoms” and added, “We trust teachers and head teachers to run their schools. We think head teachers know how to run their schools better than bureaucrats or politicians.”

Schools rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted were to be fast-tracked through the system and the Academies Bill, included in the Queen’s Speech and subsequently passed in July 2010, enabled the first tranche of these academies to open in September 2010.

The academies programme then continued at pace under the Coalition. By January 2011 there were 407 academies open in England. Of these 204 had opened since September 2010. An additional 254 more schools had applied to become academies, and more applications were coming in every week.

In June 2011, the Government announced plans for “the weakest” 200 primary schools to become sponsored academies during 2012/13. This was in addition to the 1,200 schools which had now applied to convert to academy status. The Government said the rapid conversion of so many schools to academies meant there was now “a larger pool of great schools to build chains and improve under-performing schools”.

Following victory in the 2015 General Election, the Conservative government under David Cameron laid out plans for a yet another further rapid expansion of the Academy programme. However, in 2016 these plans were softened, and whilst the government said its aim was the ‘full academisation’ of the UK’s schools, it would not now pursue a policy of ‘blanket conversion’.

The then Education Secretary Justine Greening said the government’s focus was on, “building capacity in the system and encouraging schools to convert voluntarily”.

In 2019/20, the annual school census data showed there to be 9,041 academy schools responsible for educating 4.42 million children. This compared with 12,988 directly maintained local authority schools responsible for educating 4.65 million pupils.

Although still the minority model of operating amongst primary schools, the majority of secondary schools had now become academies.By November 2022, there were a total of 10,146 academies in England.

Statistics

Of the free primary schools that had been inspected by Ofsted in 2019, 37% had been graded as outstanding and 53% had been graded as good. Across all primary school types, 18% were outstanding and 69%, good.

Of the free secondary schools that had been inspected by Ofsted in 2019, 27% of secondary free schools were graded outstanding overall, and 55%, good. Across all secondary school types, 21% were graded outstanding, and 54%, good.

[Source – Ofsted, ‘State-funded schools inspections and outcomes as at 31 March 2019’, 13 June 2019. Free school figures excludes University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools.]

As of January 2020, 35% of primary schools are now academies or free schools, up from 32% in 2019. These schools account for 37% of the primary school population. 77% of secondary schools are academies or free schools, up from 75% in 2019. This accounts for 77% of secondary school pupils. [Source – Department for Education]

The post Academy School appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

There is no absolute consensus on the definition of ‘affordable housing’.

The government defines it as ‘social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market’.

Other definitions of ‘affordable housing’ focus more specifically on the relationship between household income and spending on housing. The housing charity Shelter says affordable housing should cost no more than 35% of your household income after tax and benefits.

However even the ratio between price and income has its limitations. It is do not take into account household borrowing costs to acquire housing and, because such figures are calculated at the aggregate level, they do not always reflect the distribution of housing affordability.

To further complicate this, affordability is more than just being able to buy or rent a property. Affordable housing is also said to involve the cost of maintaining a property over a long period of time, and how sustainable it is economically and environmentally.

Another accepted measure of affordable housing is ‘residual income measures’. This focuses on the level of income that a household has left, after paying for its housing costs. This is useful in indicating whether there is sufficient income left for non-housing expenses after paying for housing.

Affordable housing remains a major political issue in the UK.

The need for affordable housing

Driving the debate over affordable housing is the recognition that it is a necessary part of modern British society. Everyone should have the opportunity of a decent home – which they can afford – in a sustainable community.

The UK’s population has risen substantially in the first twenty years of the Twenty First Century. Demographic change in the form of population growth have created new a demand for housing. But house building numbers during this same period have remained low in historic terms, causing house prices and rents particularly in London, the South East of England and the South West of England to shoot up.

An affordable home is associated with rich social benefits.  It allows families to upsize their home, or move into a house for the first time, and offers an obvious solution to the UK’s housing and homelessness crises.

Affordable homes provide social stability, enabling families to ‘put down their roots’ and begin to look for, or hold down, employment in their local area. They support a spending boost in the local economy. And in a settled environment, children can be sent to local schools and this will make learning and, in turn, social advancement more likely.

What forms of affordable housing are available

Social Housing
The terms ‘social housing’ and ‘affordable housing’ are heavily linked.

Social housing schemes provide people in the UK with homes – and normally offer a cheaper renting alternative to that of privately renting.  Social housing schemes normally provide a long term tenancy and, because of this, stability. This is viewed as one key benefit of social housing.

Social housing is provided by a local council or housing association that acts as the landlord, with social housing let on the basis of need. The safety and quality of some social housing was propelled to the forefront of public attention following the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017

Shared Ownership
Shared ownership offers the ability to buy a share of a property (between 25% and 75% of the home’s value) and pay rent on the remaining share. This is useful for those who cannot afford the full mortgage on a property.

Home Ownership for People with Long-Term Disabilities (sometimes known as ‘HOLD’) helps disabled individuals buy property on a Shared Ownership basis.

With most shared ownership schemes, military personnel are given a priority over other groups. But councils with their own shared ownership programmes may have their own policy.

Affordable Rent
Affordable rents were introduced by the government to allow social housing providers to charge up to 80% of market rent levels within the local area for letting homes. This model replaced the capital grant supply subsidy for social housing with a revenue subsidy.

‘Affordable Rent’ is designed to ‘maximise the delivery of new social housing by making the best possible use of constrained public subsidy and the existing social housing stock’.

London Living Rent
London Living Rent is a part-buy, part-rent product for those taking their first step onto the property ladder in the capital. This can be either through shared ownership or outright purchase.

Through the scheme, houses are offered on tenancies of a minimum of three years. Tenants are supported to save and given the option to buy their home on a shared ownership basis during their tenancy.

The debate around affordable housing

With housing affordability considered to have worsened in Britain in the first part of the Twenty First Century, the issue has continued to rise up the political debate. The inability of many under the age of 40 to buy a house has become more difficult, leading to inter-generational inequalities and inter-regional level disparities.

House building and social house building
In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservative Party detailed a plan to build at least one million new homes (all tenures) in the lifetime of Parliament. This included a commitment to continue investment to deliver ‘hundreds of thousands’ of affordable homes; and to consider the potential extension of housing association right to buy schemes, and other ways of supporting home ownership.

The Labour Party promised one million new social homes over a decade, 150,000 a year by the end of next Parliament; and more low-cost homes reserved for first-time buyers in every area.

There remains some common political ground around plans for housing in England – all parties have proposals for substantial new house building, alongside greater rights for private and social tenants. The Conservative Party have though typically emphasized the importance of making actual home ownership more affordable, while Labour has focused more heavily on the construction of low-rental council and housing association homes.

Local Housing Allowance
Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was introduced in England, Scotland and Wales by the Labour government in 2008, and it introduced significant changes to the way Housing Benefit levels operate.

LHA did not replace Housing Benefit – it is just a different way of calculating entitlement under the existing Housing Benefit scheme. It is used to work out how much housing benefit or universal credit a person is entitled to receive, if they rent their home from a private landlord.

Local Housing Allowance has frequently been questioned for its fairness. As the Brown government acknowledged in the 2009 Budget, ‘Indications […] are that some claimants may be able to afford accommodation that is out of reach of working families on low incomes. Furthermore, costs of Housing Benefit have been rising above inflation despite static caseloads’. The transition from the old housing benefit system to Local Housing Allowance significantly increased payments available for larger houses in some areas.

Affordable housing around the world

By bringing together cross-national information from OECD countries, key partners and EU member states, the OECD Affordable Housing Database (AHD) helps countries monitor access to good-quality affordable housing and strengthen the knowledge base for policy evaluation.

The data shows that house prices have been increasing dramatically across OECD countries, especially for renters, and the supply of affordable housing has failed to meet demand.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, one third of OECD countries recorded increasing rates of homelessness, and although single men still tend to be overrepresented among the homeless population in some places, more women, families, youth and seniors are experiencing homelessness.

Furthermore, less than half of the OECD population, on average, is satisfied with the affordability of housing in the city or area where they live.

The history of affordable housing in the UK

The end of World War I was the beginning of the age of private home ownership. While as much as 80% of the population rented their homes from private landlords, the then Prime Minister David Lloyd George aimed to turn Britain into a ‘land fit for heroes’. In 1919, the government passed the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919 (The Addison Act), providing subsidies for local authorities to build council houses.

The bombing experienced in WW2 decimated many urban areas and brought house-building to a standstill. Despite being strapped for cash in the five years following the conflict, health and housing minister at the time, Aneurin Bevan, insisted that council homes be built to high standards. 1 million new houses were built between 1945 and 1955 and approximately 900,000 people were moved out of slums and into quality affordable housing.

In the 35 years following the end of the Second World War, local authorities and housing associations built 4.4 million social homes. But by the 60s, with a rapidly expanding population, Britain experienced a housing crisis. This was punctuated by Ken Loach’s famous ‘Cathy Come Home‘ drama.

Following the 1980 Housing act, Margaret Thatcher’s government introduced the ‘right-to-buy’ housing scheme. This gave tenants the ability to buy their council homes outright. In 1982, Right to Buy sales hit an all-time peak of over 240,000. Those who took advantage of this offer saw the value of their property surge during the 1980s housing bubble. House prices rose by 16% in 1987, and a further 25% in 1988.

In his mission to modernise the Labour Party, Tony Blair identified home-ownership as something that was popular with voters. In 2004, then-Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott announced plans to build homes for just £60,000.

In 2016, David Cameron announced an additional £1.2 billion of funding to build 30,000 affordable ‘starter homes’ on underused brownfield land.

There were 57,644 affordable homes delivered (completions) and 68,346 starts on site in England in 2019-20, increases of 1 per cent and 13 per cent respectively when compared to the previous year. Of these 57,644 homes, 92% were new build. 82% of this affordable housing delivery came from private registered providers.

In his October 2021 budget, Chancellor Rishi Sunak earmarked £24 billion for housing, including the provision of £11.5bn for up to 180,000 affordable homes to be built where possible on brownfield land.

Quotes

‘When first-time buyers on a good salary cannot get a reasonable mortgage, the whole market grinds to a halt. And that ricochets around the economy, affecting builders, retailers, plumbers – all the people that depend on a housing market that is moving … If we don’t do something like this we are not going to get this vital market moving. We will restart the housing market and get Britain building again’. – David Cameron, 2011

‘Unless we act now, we face a future in which a generation of young families will be trapped renting privately for their whole lives, where more and more people will grow old in private rentals, where billions more in welfare costs will be paid to private landlords – and hundreds of thousands more people will be forced into homelessness’ – Housing Charity, Shelter.

The post Affordable housing appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Air passenger duty (APD) is a tax charged on passenger flights departing from UK airports.

From April 2024, airline passenger duty ranged from £7 to £202 on traditional flights, rising to up to £607 for the users of private jets (pending the mileage involved).

The rate of air passenger duty paid by a passenger depends on their class of travel and their destination.  Destinations are broken down into domestic travel in the UK, Band A where the capital city of the destination country is less than 2,000 miles from London, Band B where the capital city of the destination country is less than 5,500 miles from London, and Band C where the capital city is over 5,500 miles from London.

From April 2024, the rates of air passenger duty were £7 or £14 for domestic travel (pending the class of travel, either standard or non standard class), £13 or £26 for Band A destinations, £88 or £194 for Band B destinations, and £92 or £202 for Band C destinations.

Children under the age of 16 do not pay air passenger duty.

In his March 2024 budget, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt disproportionately increased the air passenger duty rates on non standard class seats above the rate of inflation.

Previously in the October 2021 budget, then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that flights between airports in the UK would be subject to a new lower rate of Air Passenger Duty from April 2023. At the same time, from April 2023, a new ultra long haul band in Air Passenger Duty for flights of over 5,500 miles is being introduced.

• In 2011, the Treasury described the tax as “primarily a revenue raising duty which makes an important contribution to the public finances”. Its potential environmental benefits were considered secondary.

Since its implementation in 1994, the government’s charge on air passengers has undergone significant structural reform and risen by up to 539%.

Compared with the UK, the vast majority of European countries do not levy an air departure tax. Just six EU countries levy a similar charge, and at lower rates than the UK.

Passenger air duty rates in the UK are the highest in Europe.

Air passenger duty is paid upon booking, although not collected if an occupied seat doesn’t fly. If passengers are unable to take their flight, they reserve the right to claim back the tax that they have paid from the airline. This may though incur administrative fees from certain companies.

Children under the age of 16 are exempt from APD when travelling in Economy class. Passengers are also exempt when passing through a UK airport as part of a long-haul flight to another destination, provided that their stop over time does not exceed 24 hours.

The case for abolishing air passenger duty

Air passenger duty faces objection from the airline industry, which views the tax as socially regressive. The tax is said to hinder the viability of air travel in lower socio-economic brackets.

It is also considered to place pressures on immigrant communities who wish to visit their family overseas, families which are often located in the long haul destination categories.

In the past, the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) has campaigned for the duty to be frozen at its existing levels. The Campaign group ‘A Fair Tax on Flying’ has sought reformed and reduced rates, while British Airways called on the Government to scrap the tax altogether.

Air passenger duty is also said to have an adverse impact on the UK economy, increasing international trading costs and presenting financial strains on businesses dependent on UK air travel.

It is claimed that abolishing air passenger duty would help drive inward investment and tourism into the UK. Airlines groups have suggested that this would include the creation of some 60,000 jobs through industries such as tourism. In 2017, tourism sustained over 3 million jobs in the UK and contributed £127 billion to the UK economy, with three quarters of these visits arriving by air.

These claims are reinforced by the experience of Ireland. After Ireland abolished its equivalent duty in 2014, there was an increase in air traffic at Dublin Airport, with Ryanair and Aer Lingus opening new routes.

A 2013 study by PwC found that abolishing the tax would result in a positive annual gain of £0.25 billion to the UK economy.

The case for taxing air travel

Those opposed to the reduction or abolition of air passenger duty point to the overall contribution that the charge makes in terms of a contribution to the UK exchequer.  This source of income supports the funding of public services. In response to industry calls to scrap the tax, the Labour Party has previously warned of the financial strain this would impose on the Treasury.

In 2019, air passenger duty raised an estimated £3.7 billion for the UK economy.

It is also noted how aviation remains relatively under taxed compared to other forms of transport like motoring. The Aviation Environment Federation wrote that the tax compensates for the “anomaly that aviation is otherwise tax-free, paying neither VAT nor fuel duty”. The Group disputes claims that increased aviation results in increased trade, and maintains that business travel is insensitive to price changes.

It is also pointed out that since its introduction, airline passenger duty has not negatively impacted on the growth of the aviation sector, with the sector having seen an average growth rate of 5% over the past 40 years.

Environmental campaigners have further suggested that air passenger duty should be increased to offset the environmental impact of aviation. Air pollution around Heathrow, the UK’s busiest airport, has regularly breached legal limits.

It is claimed that airline taxes can be a powerful policy weapon in tackling climate change. In 2007, the Treasury forecast that the rise in aviation tax would reduce CO2 emissions by around 0.3 million tonnes a year.

Over the years, there have also been persistent appeals for air passenger duty to be charged on the aircraft itself – a ‘per plane approach’ – rather than the passengers within it.  It is claimed that the emissions from an aircraft are significant, regardless of how many passengers are inside the plane.

History of air passenger duty

Airline Passenger Duty was introduced in 1994 with a set rate of £5 for domestic and EU air travel, and £10 for all other destinations. It has since undergone a number of reforms.

In 1997, the rates for airline passenger duty were doubled.

In 2001, the original set rates were divided into different rates for economy and first class. These rates remained frozen until 2006, when Chancellor Gordon Brown initiated plans for further reform.

In November 2008, it was announced that the government’s air traveler tax would be restructured to better reflect the varying length of flights. The new structure was enforced the following year and introduced four geographical bands based on their distance from London to the capital city of the destination country.

The new bands increased at intervals of 2,000 miles, ranging from 0-2,000 miles, all the way up to over 6,000 miles. This meant that passengers flying further from the UK would pay a higher tax rate. Each band contained a ‘standard rate’ and ‘reduced rate’; the latter applying to economy class travel.

This structure was criticised for placing disproportionately high tax rates on certain destinations. Following the four-tier system, flights to distant US states such as Hawaii would be taxed at lower rates than India and Caribbean Islands, based simply on where the country’s capital was based.

The bands were subsequently reduced to two, a standard rate, and a single higher rate for a long haul flight defined as one over 2,000-miles in length. In response to this change, a Virgin Atlantic spokeswoman commented: “A two-band APD rate is a very welcome simplification to remove some of the biggest distortions of the current system.”

Air Passenger Duty originally applied only to aircraft carrying more than 20 passengers but, in 2013 this was amended to include private jets with lower capacities.

In 2020, it was controversially suggested that the airline FlyBe might be allowed to defer as much as £100 million of Air passenger duty payments as part of an agreement to try and secure the future of the ailing airline.  Competitors were angered at any such competitive advantage being made available to the then airline.

In the 2021 budget, new reforms were announced for Air Passenger Duty, which from 2023 will reduce the rate on shorter domestic flights, and increase the rate on long haul flights over 5,500 miles.

In the 2024 budget, chancellor Jeremy Hunt further increased the rates of air passenger duty for those travelling in non standard class seats.

Legal questions over doubling of air tax

Quotes

“I need to raise revenue, but to do so in a way which does least damage to the economy” – Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke, in his 1993 Budget speech which introduced air passenger duty.

“The government has finally acknowledged what the industry and business knew all along – that the highest rates of aviation tax in the world were a brake on driving the UK’s economic growth with emerging markets” – Dale Keller, speaking on behalf of the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK.

Statistics

The UK is ranked 137th out of 138 when it comes to possessing high airline ticket taxes and charges according to the 2015 World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report. Only Chad ranks lower than the UK.

A report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates the annual contribution to the UK economy of the leisure aviation industry to be £14.1bn.

Cuts to Air Passenger Duty will emit as much CO2 as 2.3m train journeys say Lib Dems

Sunak says govt on track to cut carbon emissions despite cuts to domestic air passenger duty

The post Air Passenger Duty appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The European Environment Agency defined air pollution as “the presence of contaminant or pollutant substances in the air at a concentration that interferes with human health or welfare, or produces other harmful environmental effects.”

The main source of air pollution is fossil fuel combustion, the central process for most electricity generation, heating systems and motor vehicles.

There are a vast range of air pollutants, which cause a variety of effects on the environment and health. Amongst those most commonly cited are sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and particulate matter.

Air quality is key to the health of humans and ecosystems. Air pollution can lead to a variety of respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, bronchitis, heart and chest diseases, stomach disorders, and cancers. There is also growing understanding of the links between atmospheric problems such as local air pollution, acid rain, global climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion.

Air pollution is worst in Latin America and Asia. In cities such as Seoul and Mexico City, the air quality is so bad that people have now long worn facemasks just to filter the air.

Air quality is now the responsibility of Parliament after Britain’s departure from the EU.

Background

Air pollution has historically been caused by industrialisation and the consequent proliferation in the use of ‘fossil fuels’ (and therefore sulphur dioxide emissions) in the industrial process.

However, in modern Britain, traffic is now the major air polluter, with traffic fumes accounting for just over half of the total domestic nitrogen emissions.

Petrol and diesel-engine motor vehicles emit a wide variety of pollutants, mainly carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulates (PM10), which have an increasing impact on urban air quality.

The Gothenburg Protocol which came into force in 2005, set targets for reducing pollutants and emissions which were to be met by 2010.

A new Air Quality Directive came into force in June 2008, to be transposed into national legislation by June 2010. The Directive allows Member States to request, under strict conditions, time extensions to meet the air quality standards for PM10 (until 11th June 2011) and NO2 and benzene (until 2015 at the latest).

The UK Government and the devolved administrations published the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on 17 July 2007.  This set out a way forward for work and planning on air quality issues and air quality standards.

The EU National Emission Ceilings Directive later set ceilings for each Member State for emissions of ammonia, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These four pollutants are primarily responsible for acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone. The ceilings had to be met by 2010.

The EU Air Quality Framework Directive (96/62/EC) then defined the policy framework for 12 air pollutants known to have a harmful effect on human health and the environment. The limit values for these specific pollutants were set through a series of Daughter Directives.

Air Quality – Post Brexit

Following Britain’s departure from the European Union in 2020, air quality became the responsibility of the British Parliament and government.

A number of EU directives relevant to air quality had already been transposed into UK law through the Air Quality Standard Regulations 2010, including the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008 which set legally binding limits for concentrations in outdoor air of major pollutants that impact public health such as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

These limits required a significant reduction of air pollution in towns and cities across the UK, many of which currently exceed the EU’s pollution limits, particularly for nitrogen dioxide, which is linked to thousands of deaths across the country.

As such the air pollution limits set by the European Union will technically remain in UK law after Brexit, having been enshrined in domestic law through the Air Quality Standards Regulation. However, the European Union no longer has a role in the enforcement of these standards.

Theoretically the UK government is therefore free to repeal the existing limits or review any deadlines for meeting them. It is also free to introduce tighter air quality requirements than those that previously existed under EU law.  Should it chose, it could though also increase the nature of the limits above those in existence in the EU.

The government currenrtly has two types of air quality target in the UK.  The first is the national emissions ceilings, which are breached if too much of one pollutant is emitted across the UK within a calendar year.   The second are local concentrattion limits, which are breached if the level of a pollutant in a specific area over a given period of time is too high.

Controversies

Concerns about air pollution range from the very local – many rural and suburban councils cite the nuisance caused by bonfires as their principal air pollution problem – to the truly global.

Pollution crosses national boundaries and international action, which is not always forthcoming, is required to address it. Moreover, evidence of climate change, caused by air pollution, suggests that pollution’s effects may be irreversible and catastrophic.

Environmental concerns have only become mainstream in the developed world’s political systems in the last 30 years or so, but many still claim that economic objectives are routinely given precedence over the environment. In the developing world, which is increasingly industrialising, the problem is becoming even more pressing.

Air pollution in the UK is cited as a contributing factor in a range of environmental and health problems, such as rising rates of childhood asthma, allergies and habitat loss, although its precise role is frequently vaguely defined.

Public Health England estimated in 2017 that reducing fine particulate matter concentrations by 1ug/m3 over 18 years could prevent 50,900 cases of coronary heart disease, 16,500 strokes, 9,300 cases of asthma and 4,200 lung cancers.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth claimed that air pollution in London breached legal limits in April 2011, despite commitments by both the UK Government and the London Mayor to bring it under control to avoid huge EU fines.

Statistics

Outdoor air pollution causes an estimated 40,000 deaths in the UK every year. Exposure to outdoor air pollution is estimated to lead to a loss of 15 minutes of life expectancy each day. In addition to the health implications, air pollution has a significant impact on business and our health services. In the UK, these costs add up to more than £20 billion every year.  [Source – Royal College of Physicians Briefing Paper. 2017]

Domestic combustion using wood as a fuel accounted for 38% of primary emissions of particulate matter 2.5 in 2019. There is an increasing trend in emissions from this source; annual emissions from domestic wood burning have more-than doubled since 2003. Burning of solid fuels for manufacturing and construction was also a main source of particulate matter emissions (18 per cent in 2019). [Source – National Statistics – Emissions of air pollutants in the UK – 2021]

Road transport activity is a significant source of emissions of nitrogen oxides, and to a lesser extent particulate matter. Road transport accounted for 28% of emissions of nitrogen oxides in 2020, with a further 13% attributable to other forms of transport (aviation, rail, and shipping). [Source – National Statistics – Emissions of air pollutants in the UK – 2021]

Levels and trends in emissions of ammonia are largely driven by activity in the agriculture sector, primarily linked to herd sizes and the extent of fertiliser spreading. This sector accounted for 87 per cent of emissions of ammonia in 2020. [Source – National Statistics – Emissions of air pollutants in the UK – 2021]

Energy production and transformation were still significant sources of emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 2019 (23% and 18% of each pollutant respectively). [Source – National Statistics – Emissions of air pollutants in the UK – 2021]

Quotes

“Air pollution in the UK has declined significantly over recent decades through measures to reduce pollution from transport, industrial and domestic sources. However, the rate of reduction is now levelling off for some key pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen.” – Defra – 2011

“It’s outrageous that London is choking on air so dirty it’s illegal – air pollution contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year in the capital, particularly affecting some of its most disadvantaged people” – Friends of the Earth London Campaigner, Jenny Bates – April 2011

“Exposure to outdoor air pollution is associated with lifelong health implications, including: effects on foetal development (particularly in relation to lung and kidney development), and increases in heart attacks and strokes for those in later life. Air pollution is also linked to asthma, diabetes, dementia, obesity and cancer”. Royal College of Physicians Briefing Paper. 2017

The post Air Quality appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In his October 2021 budget, the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a series of reforms to alcohol duties, describing his plans as, the “most radical simplification of alcohol duties for over 140 years”.

The changes come into force in August 2023.

Plans to reform alcohol duties had previously been contained in the Conservative Party’s 2019 election manifesto.

Under the new system, the number of main duty rates will fall.  The new system will see higher duty rates added to stronger alcohol products.  This will increase the price of drinks such as sherry, port, and certain high strength ciders and fortified wines.

As part of his proposals, Sunak is also introducing a new ‘draught relief’ that applies to drinks served from containers over 40 litres in pubs.  This will see the duty for cider and beer that is served in pubs fall by 5%, a measure that is expected to cut the cost of a pint of beer by approximately 3 pence.

The new duty regime has been introduced as a reform designed to support the pub trade.  It was pointed out that beween 2012-21, beer duty had been cut by 24% in real terms, yet beer sales in pubs have fallen by 17% while supermarket sales have increased by 11% over the same period.

As part of the change the Institute of Fiscal Studies has estimated that a glass of prosecco would attract 20p less in duty, a pint of beer in the pub 3p less duty, a glass of red wine would face 11p more in duty, and a pint of cider drunk at home 2p more. The duty rate faced by a pint of beer drunk at home, or a glass of gin and tonic, would remain unchanged.

The changes to beer duty have been welcomed by the British Beer and Pub Association.

The Institute for Alcohol Studies has welcomed the principles of the proposed system, but called for an increase in overall duty rates.  In particular it wishes to see alcohol duties increase automatically in line with inflation each year, and the exemptionalism for cider (the preferential rate) to be removed.

What are alcohol duties?

Most products containing alcohol are subject to a series of excise duties: either spirits duty, wine and made wine duty, beer duty, or cider and perry duty. These duties are collected by HM Customs and Excise, and are levied on manufacturers and importers.

In 2020/21 duties on alcoholic drinks were set to raise £12.9 billion for the government.  Some £3.9 billion of that amount came from beer and cider, £3.9 billion from wine, and £4.8 billion from spirits.

It has been suggested that duty accounts for around 10% of the price of an average pint of beer in a pub, 57% of the cost of a bottle of wine, and 79% of the cost of a bottle of spirits.

The rate of alcohol duties is adjusted annually by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the Budget, with changes coming into force that day under the terms of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

Debate around alcohol duties

Many drinkers resent the high and regularly rising prices that they have to pay for alcoholic beverages as a result of alcohol duties. Nonetheless, the principle of government taxing alcohol heavily as a source of revenue and to provide a price-based deterrent to drinking is longstanding.

Those arguing around this issue, variously refer to a number of aspects of the debate:

Taxation as a Public Health tool
Approaching the alcohol duty debate from a public health perspective, a number of campaign organisations call for the use of alcohol duties as a key part of a strategy to reduce overall levels of drinking.

The campaign group, Alcohol Concern, has pointed out that 200,000 children in England live with an alcohol dependent parent; that 167,000 working years are lost each year to alcohol; and that alcohol costs the NHS in England some £3.5 billion per year in related treatment costs.

Alcohol also contributes significantly to the work, time, and costs involved in the criminal justice system.

Alcohol taxation as a revenue generator for the taxman
Alcohol duties raise over £12 billion per year for the Exchequer.  In the years after the 2020/21 Coronavirus pandemic, it is argued that these are revenues the government desperately needs in order to fund public services.

Alcohol taxation and smuggling
In the early Twenty First Century a significant problem of alcohol smuggling emerged. The causes of this phenomenon are disputed, but perhaps the most important is the desire of large sections of the public to pay less for alcohol and their interest in evading duty to do so.

Some critics of the UK’s alcohol duties regime put the problem down to the differential rates in the UK and the rest of Europe. This has generated the problem of the “white van man”, who makes money by bootlegging drink. The drinks industry campaigns vigorously for UK duty levels to be lowered to those seen on the continent.

It is pointed out how the Government faces a dilemma with regard to alcohol duties. Increasing duties can be expected to stimulate duty evasion and revenue loss, while reducing them leaves the Government open to accusations of social irresponsibility and reduces legitimate revenue.

Damage to the drinks industry
Industry groups and real ale organisation’s highlight how alcohol duties are putting the sector under increased pressure.   The pub trade is already considered to be suffering considerably given the tendency for people to buy cheaper take outs and cans from supermarkets over the last two decades. In 1994, 58% of all alcohol sold in England and Wales was sold in the on-trade. By 2019 that had fallen to 28%.

In the light of the alcohol escalator charge introduced by the Brown Government, Brigid Simmonds the Chief Executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, accused the policy of resulting in “hundreds of pub closures” and the loss of over “5,000 jobs” in the sector in one year.

The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) has supported the idea of charging a lower rate of duty in pubs, so to advantage that part of the sector.   It is argued that licenced premises have higher retail prices than off-trade providers and are less likely to be harmful, given that alcohol is being drunk in a supervised, regulated location.

 High prices for consumers
Taxpayers groups have also pointed to the high cost of alcohol in the UK, compared to the rest of Europe.

The TaxPayers Alliance has suggested that alcohol prices in the UK are 43% higher than the EU average because of alcohol duty.

Back in 2012, the Wine Trade and Spirit Association pointed to how the rate of alcohol taxation in the UK was now “so out of step with our European neighbours” that visitors to the London Olympics would face paying 50 per cent more for an average bottle of wine (£4.89) than if the Games were being held in Paris (£3.26) and triple what they would pay in Madrid (£1.52).

Complexities in the system
The current alcohol duty regime is also said to be complicated to understand, and disproportionate.  Prior to the reforms in the 2021 budget, the duty structure had been criticised for the way in which it treated drinks very differently in terms of the amount of duty paid relative to the level of alcohol contained within the drink.

History of alcohol duties

Early Years
Governments have taxed the consumption of alcohol for centuries, with different intentions at different times. Usually, governments were simply taking advantage of high demand to raise money from alcohol, and in the wake of high duties, smuggling has typically followed.

In some parts of Britain, such as Cornwall, during the 18th and 19th centuries, smuggling of luxury goods (including drink) from Europe was more economically significant than the legitimate economy.

One of the best known and earliest attempts to use alcohol duties for social and health purposes, however, occurred in the early 18th centuries. At the end of the 17th century, cheap gin began to be consumed in large quantities in Britain, and laws introduced by William III actively encouraged distillation. With gin sometimes being distributed as part of workers’ wages, consumption soon outstripped beer-drinking. Gin was taxed at 2d per gallon, while strong beer was taxed at 4 shillings 9d. The widespread consumption of gin was causing serious health and social problems, particularly in London (most famously depicted in Hogarth’s “Gin Lane”). Research has suggested that gin-drinking was one of the main causes behind the death rate in the capital overtaking the birth rate in this period.

In 1729, gin sellers were required to be licensed (at a cost of £20) and the duty was raised to 2 shillings per gallon. In 1736, the Gin Act raised the cost of a licence to £50 and the duty to £1 – making gin prohibitively expensive. Rioting followed, and in the seven following years, only three licences were bought – yet gin, now frequently adulterated and harmful, continued to be consumed in huge quantities. The unenforceable Act was repealed in 1742 and the gin problem reached its peak during that decade, before a new system of regulation was introduced in 1751.

Modern Alcohol Duties and the European Single Market
Today, the framework for alcohol duties is provided by the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

The advent of the EU single market in 1992 was a critical turning point for alcohol duties: for the first time, most of the restrictions on people travelling to other European countries – where duties were usually far lower – were removed.

This led on to large scale “bootlegging” (the bringing back of alcohol from the continent “for personal consumption” which was then resold without UK duty being paid). The Major government recognised this problem, and froze alcohol duties in its final years in an attempt to stem the tide of duty evasion, a policy initially continued by the Labour government after 1997.

In 2003, in response to the extent of spirit smuggling, the Chancellor Gordon Brown announced plans to require bottles to display a stamp confirming that UK duty had been paid – in the face of industry opposition. Measures were included in the 2004 Finance Bill.

Gordon Brown’s government then introduced a duty escalator which saw the the duty on alcoholic beverages by 6 per cent in real terms between 2008 and 2013.  This escalator proved very unpopular with the pub community.

The Conservative Liberal Democrat Coalition government that was elected in May 2010 stated that it would “review alcohol taxation and pricing to ensure it tackles binge drinking without unfairly penalising responsible drinkers, pubs and important local industries”. In his Budget speech on 20 March 2013 the Chancellor, George Osborne, announced that while duty rates on other drink categories would go up by 2 per cent above RPI, the duty escalator on beer would be cancelled, and the duty rate would be cut by 1p per pint

Alcohol Duties post Brexit
Britain’s departure from the European Union in 2020, has opened up the possibility of fundamental reform to the alcohol duty regime in the UK.   The UK no longer has to comply with the  EU-wide regime for minimum excise duties.

Following Britain’s departure from the European Union, from 1st January, people are entitled to buy alcohol and tobacco products duty-free, irrespective of their destination. People are able to import 42 litres of beer, 18 litres of still wine, and 4 litres of spirits or 9 litres of sparkling wine, fortified wine or any alcoholic beverage less than 22% ABV.

In July 2020, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Jesse Norman said that the government “recognises” the need to reform the current duty system.  In October 2020, the government launched an ‘Alcohol Duty Review’, a call for evidence from stakeholders on how well the system currently works and how it might be reformed.   This subsequently fed into the reform of alcohol duties announced in the October 2021 budget and introduced in August 2023.

Quotes

“Our new system will be designed around a common-sense principle: the stronger the drink, the higher the rate. This means that some drinks, like stronger red wines, fortified wines, or high-strength ‘white ciders’ will see a small increase in their rates because they are currently undertaxed given their strength.” – Rishi Sunak, Chancellor, October 2021 Budget.

“The Government recognises the need  to reform the current duty system to support the alcoholic drinks and pubs sector in the longer term, and will publish a call for evidence before end September 2020” – Jesse Norman, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, July 2020.

“We welcome the reduction of the sparkling wine super tax, which is long overdue. However, while simpler, the proposals for the overhaul of a new alcohol taxation system does not make the regime fairer, which was a fundamental aim of the [recent government] review” – Miles Beale, CEO of the Wine & Spirit Trade Association.

“MPs must not lose sight of the importance of taxation as a means not only to lower levels of alcohol harm but also to direct revenues to the public purse. If minimum pricing is not combined with an increase in duty or some form of levy, any extra monies will increase the profits of the supermarkets and the drinks industry”….”We urge MPs to use the opportunity today to push for an effective solution on cheap drink. With alcohol harm costing the UK an estimated £25bn each year, they can’t afford not to act.” – From a letter to the Telegraph on the Alcohol Taxation Debate, signed by a group of leading doctors and academics, including Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chairman, UK Alcohol Health Alliance and Special Advisor on Alcohol, Royal College of Physicians; and Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman, British Medical Association Council – December 2011

The post Alcohol duty appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The ambulance service is the emergency response wing of the National Health Service (NHS).

The ambulance service has two main functions: an accident and emergency paramedical function, and the Patient Transport Service function which transfers immobile patients to and from their hospital appointments.

There are currently 10 NHS ambulance trusts in England, some of which are now foundation trusts. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own separate ambulance services.

Controversies

Is the ambulance service privatized?
Since 2012 Clinical Commissioning Groups have sought to outsource non-emergency transport for the NHS.

Emergency work has largely remained the remit of the ambulance trusts across the country.

This practice has involved so called ‘framework contracts’ which procure the services of external organisations to provide non-emergency ambulance services.  These framework contracts involve transport companies (like Arriva and taxi firms), charities such as The Red Cross, and private ambulance companies.

Not all of these ‘framework contracts’ have gone well.  In particular attention has focused on the Coperforma contract in Sussex for non-emergency patient transport.  Awarded jointly by seven Commissioning Care Groups, the contract was said to be worth £63 million over four years.  However after a number of media reports about crews not turning up to pick up patients and around delays for patients in hospitals awaiting transport home, an investigation was launched.  A subsequent report criticised ‘unacceptable levels’ of performance. Coperforma subsequently lost its contract and closed with debts said to be in the region of £11 million.

Ambulance wait times
Ambulance services are measured by the time it takes from receiving a 999 call to a vehicle arriving at the location of the patient.  Call targets are split into four categories relating to a person’s condition. Targets are assessed in terms of when the most appropriate response arrives on scene, rather than the first.

Ambulances are now expected to reach people with life-threatening illnesses or injuries (Category 1) in an average time of seven minutes.   National standards require all ambulance trusts to respond to 90% of Category 1 calls in 15 minutes.

In January 2023, figures published by the department of health showed there to be 72,861 Category 1 calls to the ambulance service in England.

In May 2019 the average Category 1 response time was 6 minutes 54 seconds in May 2019.  However by September 2021 this had risen to 9 minutes 2 seconds, with the 90% target being missed for the first time in July 2021..

In December 2022, the response time crossed 10 minutes, the worst performance on record.  This led coroners to write to the government reaffirming the effects of ambulance delays.

In the first half of 2023, ambulance wait times had shown some signs of improvement, with the government detailing plans to get some 800 new ambulances on the road.  However the response time for a category two call – covering serious conditions such as heart attacks or stroke was still 32 minutes, nearly twice the 18-minute target.

2023 Strikes
In 2023, ambulance staff, including drivers, call operators and medics went on strike as they sought sought a 17% pay rise.  The strikes came at a time of 10.9% infation and a cost of living crisis.

The unions involved, the GMB, Unison and Unite, rejected a 4% pay rise offer in the autumn of 2022.  In December.  In January 2023, a rise of 4.75% was offered. Striking workers voted with more than a 99% majority that this was not enough.

In March 2023, the strikes were suspended as unions held fresh talks with the government.

Performance Targets
Like all NHS bodies, the ambulance service has to meet national performance targets – and it has not been immune to accusations of distorting priorities as a result. A report in Health Which? magazine back in 2002 claimed that ambulance service paramedics had admitted to manipulating response times to meet ambitious new government targets.

The article quoted from one paramedic who stated that if the crews were in danger of missing the targets: “That’s where the magic pen comes in. Crews do a rough calculation. If it is not within eight minutes, they change it.” The magazine even alleged that some ambulance Trusts had begun a practice of re-classifying certain conditions as non-life threatening so that they could avoid the eight-minute target.

Suspicions were raised of potential malpractice when figures published by the ambulance service showed a dramatic improvement in performance, with 28 out of 32 ambulance trusts in England meeting the target, compared to just three the previous year.

However, many changes have been made to the ambulance service in recent years and a significant investment in the training and development of ambulance crews has, according to the Department of Health, resulted in “more effective patient care than ever before.”

In addition, ‘clinical quality indicators’ were introduced in April 2011 to allow patients and the public to see the quality of care provided by ambulance services. They are also intended to encourage discussion and debate amongst ambulance staff, NHS managers, commissioners and the public about how the quality of the care can be improved.

The indicators cover: Service Experience of patients; Outcome of patients from acute STEMI (ST segment elevation myocardial infarction – a type of heart attack); Outcome from cardiac arrest: return of spontaneous circulation; Outcome from cardiac arrest to discharge; Outcome following stroke for ambulance patients.

They also cover: Proportion of calls closed with telephone advice or managed without transport to A&E; Re-contact rate following discharge of care – to ensure that ambulance trusts provide safe and effective care the first time; Call abandonment rate – to ensure ambulance trusts can take 999 calls and that people don’t abandon their 999 call before a control room operator has answered; Time to answer calls – measuring how quickly all 999 calls are answered; Time until treatment by an ambulance-dispatched health professional; Category A: eight minutes response time – measuring whether those patients most in need of an emergency ambulance get one quickly.

Funding

Ambulance Trusts receive funding through annual NHS Service Level Agreements made with primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups in a particular geographic area.  

The Department of Health provides a capital allocation each year, together, with additional funding for CBRN (chemical, biological radiological, nuclear) response training.

Ambulance trusts also generate income from their attendance at public events like music festivals, and from the provision of commercial training.   Many have charitable funds that also receive donations.

Each Ambulance Trust has a Board which allocates it annual expenditure.

History

The ambulance service in the UK dates back to the late 19th century, with locally-funded services such as the Metropolitan Asylums Board operating in the London area in 1897. The earliest British Ambulance Flight was recorded in war torn Turkey in 1917. It was not until the formation of the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 that it became a public duty to provide ambulances for all those who needed them.

Between then and today, ambulance services have undergone numerous reorganisations and redefinitions.

In 2001, the Government set out a programme for reforming emergency care services over the following four years. ‘Reforming Emergency Care’ saw improvements in emergency response times, the deployment of new technology (including satellite navigation systems and better equipment to deal with heart patients) and funded increases in frontline ambulance staff and vehicles.

The NHS Modernisation Agency also formed an Ambulance Group, ‘The Improvement Partnership for Ambulance Services’, to support ambulance staff to modernise their own services, help individual ambulance trusts improve performance and spread good practice.

On 1 July 2006, significant changes were made to the organisation of the ambulance service. The number of ambulance trusts covering England was reduced from 31 to 13.

Today there are 10 ambulance services in England providing emergency access to healthcare.

There is then the separate Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust which covers the whole Wales, the Scottish Ambulance Trust which covers the whole of Scotland, and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust which covers the whole of Northern Ireland.

Emergency 999 calls for an ambulance are prioritised into two categories: emergencies which are immediately life-threatening and emergencies which are not life-threatening.

Emergency ambulance crews now typically comprise an emergency care assistant and a paramedic. All crews are required to train to a very high level, which enables them to deal with any aspect of emergency care, from minor injuries to cardiac arrest, or multiple casualties sustained in serious road accidents. Emergency ambulances carry a wide range of equipment including intravenous drips, drugs, oxygen and heart defibrillators.

The patient transport service (PTS) branch of the ambulance service provides transport for a wide range of patients including: out patients; disablement service centre patients; routine discharges and admissions; geriatric and psycho geriatric day care; non-urgent inter-hospital transfers; those unable to attend hospital by any other means.

PTS ambulances are manned by ambulance care assistants – or PTS drivers – whose training includes comprehensive first aid, specialist driving skills, patient moving and handling techniques, basic life support and patient care skills.

A recent innovation has been the bicycle ambulance – officially the Cycle Response Unit – which operates in London. Initiated by Tom Lynch, a former competitive cyclist who joined the ambulance service at the age of 22, a formal trial of the service took place in 2000 and today the unit has a team of 60 staff.

The Cycle Response Unit uses custom-built Rockhopper mountain bikes with London Ambulance Service livery, blue lights and a siren. The rider wears London Ambulance Service livery and protective equipment and carries a comprehensive medical kit. A bicycle paramedic has been said to cycle approximately 140 miles a week.

Statistics

Each year about one in twenty people in the United Kingdom will use the accident and emergency ambulance service. However, responding to 999 calls makes up only 10% of the total number of ambulance service journeys, they are also involved in non emergency work through the patient transport service. [Source: NHS]

Emergency 999 calls to the ambulance service are prioritised into two categories to ensure life-threatening cases receive the quickest response: Immediately life threatening – An emergency response will reach 75% of these calls within eight minutes. Where onward transport is required, 95% of life-threatening calls will receive an ambulance vehicle capable of transporting the patient safely within 19 minutes of the request for transport being made. All other calls – For conditions that are not life threatening, response targets are set locally. [Source: NHS Choices – 2012]

The post Ambulance Service appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Angling is the capture of fish for recreational purposes. It therefore may be distinguished from commercial fishing. There are three popular types of angling: coarse, sea and game.

Angling has long been a recreational pastime in the UK. In this country, it is regulated largely by a series of ‘by-laws’, the rules made by a local authority to regulate its own affairs. These generally specify regulations for certain species of fish, so called ‘bag’ limits, as well as specifying controls on angling methods.

Nationally, all anglers over the age of twelve must obtain ‘rod licences’ from the Environment Agency.  Failure to do so can result in prosecution (with a maximum fine of £2,500). Angling in many locations also requires specific permits, which are issued by individual angling organisations.

According to the Environment Agency’s ‘Fishing Licence data analysis’, in 2019 there were 900,000 freshwater anglers in the United Kingdom, a reduction from 1.2 million in 2010. The 2019 National Angling Strategy also pointed to a declining number of junior fishermen.

Levels of freshwater angling in the UK have declined in the last decade.

Those opposed to fishing typically cite a mixture of environmental and animal cruelty concerns, whilst those supportive of angling point to its benefits to the economy, its contribution to the mental and physical health of its participants, as well as deploying arguments based around individual liberty.

Arguments made against angling

Opponents of fishing typically do so on grounds of animal welfare, citing the impact of angling and its methods on the fish themselves.

Categorising angling as a blood sport, campaigners such as the pressure group, PETA, emphasise the cruelty of the practice. They argue that the pain and suffering endured by the fish, for human fun, is not acceptable in a modern society.

Although the understanding of the physiology of fish appears to be a matter of scientific debate, campaigners against angling point to academic research from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Glasgow which having studied the pain receptors in fish, found they are strikingly similar to mammals.

Opponents of angling remain critical of the practice of ‘catch and release’ fishing whereby fish are put back into the water after being caught. Animal welfare campaigners claim that physiological evidence shows that fish removed from water experience terror, stress and lose some of their waterproofing – making them easier prey and more prone to infection, parasites and predators when thrown back into the water. It is also suggested that the process of removing the hook from a fish can damage a fish’s mouth, throat and guts.

Animal welfare campaigners also note how other species can suffer from angling. It is suggested that fishing litter is a major hazard for wildlife such as mice, voles, swans and hedgehogs.

Critics also argue that recreational fishing may contribute to the depletion of some particular fish stocks, including through ‘sea’ angling. However, increased regulation has reduced this problem, as has the promotion of a ‘catch and return’ policy by angling bodies.

Some animal welfare groups, including PETA, have also linked exposure to animal cruelty amongst children to violence in humans. Deborah Kay Steinken, one animal-welfare campaigner and domestic violence counselor, has been quoted as saying, “Children who witness cruelty to animals experience psychological and emotional damage that compromises their empathy development because they become desensitized to feelings of kindness, hurt, pain, and suffering in themselves and other living beings.”.

Arguments made to support angling

Supporters of angling do so on grounds of individual liberty, deploying the same arguments around rights to personal freedom as those witnessed in other animal welfare discussions, including those around shooting and fox hunting.

Moreover angling groups also point out, that unlike shooting or fox hunting, in the case of ‘catch and release’ fishing, the fish are returned alive to the water having been caught.

They take issue with the description of fishing as a blood sport. And although animal welfare campaigners have highlighted the level of pain and distress suffered to fish during the angling process, these levels of suffering are disputed by the angling community.

Supporters of angling also point to the benefits that the sport can bring to people’s mental and physical health. It is noted how fishing helps reduce anxiety and provides a calming effect in the face of the pressures of everyday life. It is also said to provide people with Vitamin D exposure as they sit outside, and help people keep fit, with fishing said to be an activity that keeps the whole body moving.

Fishing is also said to help stimulate the brain, and develop people’s levels of patience, powers of concentration, and levels of persistence.

The angling club, fishing competitions and match fishing, are also said to provide many people with a valuable sense of community.

Angling groups also point to the contribution made by angling to the economy. In its response to the Covid 19 lock downs in 2020 and 2021, the Angling Trust suggested the angling trade in the UK was worth as much as £4 billion per year and supported up to 40,000 jobs. The fishing trade is said to include the angling club, the tackle shop, suppliers of fishing equipment, bait and tackle providers, outdoor clothing and ancillary products.

Statistics

Britain’s 4 million anglers catch approximately 200 million fish each year. [Source – PETA website, 2021]

72% of respondents said that it helped to keep them healthy, 62% saying angling was one of their ways of being physically active and 25% saying it was their main way of being active; 70% said that angling helped them de-stress; 58% of respondents would access nature less often or not at all If they did not go angling, 70% would visit rural areas less often and 22% would visit coastal areas less often” – [Source – The National Angling Survey, 2018]

Quotes

“Pierced through the mouth with a sharp metal hook; dragged out of the water, convulsing and struggling, into an environment where they can’t breathe; and killed outright, left to suffocate or flung back into the water, traumatised and sometimes fatally injured – fish suffer horribly at the hands of anglers” – PETA website, 2021.

“As long as we have a strong, respected and effective national voice do not believe angling will be banned. I think we have robust arguments as to why our pastime is beneficial to individuals, communities and the economy. However, must ensure that our lobbying is not conducted on a shoestring otherwise we simply wont be able to compete with the anti-angling pressure groups. The Angling Trust and Fish Legal are here to protect fish and fishing but our campaigning function is funded by members and as a result more members gives us more ability to protect our right to fish…I hope we are not in a situation when anglers turn to us retrospectively to ask us to try and get fishing back rather than back us now to stand up and protect it”. – Jamie Cook, Chief Executive of the Angling Trust, 2020.

“What sport can be both exhilarating and relaxing, be a gateway from inactivity to a healthier life and test endurance and skill? What sport can be carried out with friends and family or if you like, completely on your own? What sport could possibly take you from a tumbling mountain stream to the expanse of the ocean and via endless miles of canals, majestic rivers, secret urban waterways, secluded park ponds, lakes and reservoirs and beaches? And what sport actually helps deliver environmental improvements? Angling! Angling is like no other sport, pastime or hobby!” – National Angling Strategy 2019-2024

“Through huge efforts and major investments hundreds of miles of rivers and canals running through our towns and cities are now cleaner than in living memory and fish stocks are thriving right in your back yard! ……. So if you think your local river or canal is still fishless give it a try. You could be surprised by the results.” – Environment Agency – 2012

The post Angling appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Animal welfare relates to the general health and well-being of animals and covers a wide range of issues, from the care of family pets to concerns about exploitation and abuse.

Animal rights are hotly debated. Proponents stress the helplessness and vulnerability of animals and campaign for their protection, particularly in areas such as medical research and factory farming. Others take a more pragmatic approach, insisting that the ever-increasing demand for better medicines and more food should take priority over the rights of animals.

However, few in Britain today would argue against the need to protect animals from suffering and there are many organisations which continue to campaign vigorously for animal rights.

Animal welfare campaigns variously include opposition to hunting, shooting, badger culling, animal testing, factory farming, and concerns around endangered species, and the treatment of domestic pets.

History of Animal Welfare in the UK

Historically, Britain could claim to be something of a world leader in animal welfare, having been responsible for the first ever animal welfare legislation and the first animal welfare charity.

19th Century
In 1822 the ‘Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle’ was steered through the House of Commons by Irish MP Richard Martin – known as ‘Humanity Dick’ because of his campaigning for both animal and human rights.

The act stated that if any person or persons “shall wantonly and cruelly beat, abuse, or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or other cattle” they would be fined a sum “not exceeding five pounds, not less than ten shillings”; failure to pay the fine would result in a prison sentence of up to three months.

Not everyone appeared to take the new law seriously, however, and there were concerns that the legislation was not being properly implemented. Consequently, in order to provide greater protection for animals, Richard Martin, together with the Reverend Arthur Broome and fellow MP and slave trade abolitionist William Wilberforce, founded the world’s first animal welfare charity, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), in a London coffee shop in 1824.

The charity subsequently attracted the patronage of Queen Victoria and went on to become the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), well-known today as one of the world’s leading animal welfare organisations.

Other animal charities began to be established towards the end of the 19th century and some, like the RSPCA, are still going strong today. The Mayhew Animal Home, for example, founded in 1886 to protect “the lost and starving dogs and cats of London”, is still rescuing and providing shelter for thousands of animals every year; and the National Canine Defence League (NCDL) set up in 1891 to protect dogs from torture and mistreatment of any kind, today operates as the Dogs Trust and has become the UK’s largest dog welfare charity.

Animal experimentation also became a major issue around that time. Although live animals had been used in research for many years, it was not until the late 19th century that anti-vivisection societies began to organise concerted opposition to the practice. Five of the societies merged in 1898 to form the British Union, which later became the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. Support for the movement grew rapidly and today the BUAV and many other national and international groups are continuing to campaign for an end to all animal experimentation.

20th Century
The work of the various charities was supported by the introduction of further legislation which was gradually expanded to cover domestic and other animals. The 1911 Protection of Animals Act was introduced to “consolidate, amend, and extend certain enactments relating to Animals and to Knackers”.

The Act made it an offence of cruelty to “cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal” or permit an animal to be so used; to “convey or carry, or permit to be conveyed or carried, any animal in such manner or position as to cause that animal any unnecessary suffering”; to “cause or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal”; to “administer, or cause administration of, any poisonous or injurious drug or substance to any animal; and to “cause or permit any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity”.

Any person found guilty of such an offence of cruelty would be liable to a fine “not exceeding twenty-five pounds”; and/or be imprisoned, “with or without hard labour,” for a term “not exceeding six months”.

Further Acts were passed throughout the 20th century. These included the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925; the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended 1983); the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963; the Riding Establishments Act 1964 and 1970; and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which amended and extended the provisions of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991.

21st Century
In 2006, the Animal Welfare Act largely repealed and replaced the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, strengthened and updated the provisions of that Act, and consolidated and updated several other pieces of animal welfare legislation.

In addition, the Act introduced a new offence of failing to ensure the welfare of an animal. Any person responsible for an animal must ensure that five specific needs of the animal are met: (a) its need for a suitable environment, (b) its need for a suitable diet, (c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, (d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and (e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

The Act also made it an offence to dock the whole or any part of a dog’s tail, unless that dog is a certified working dog of not more than five days old.

Anyone found guilty of offences under the Act could be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or given a prison sentence.

The Animal Welfare Act also provides for secondary legislation and codes of practice to be introduced to further promote the welfare of animals. The Government has since introduced such codes of practice for the welfare of dogs, cats, horses and primates.

Controversies

Animal welfare and animal rights seem to attract more controversy than many other issues, one of the most obvious examples being the antithetical views of vegans and livestock farmers.   The below is a non exhaustive list of some of the current leading debates around animal welfare.

Factory Farming
Vegans typically believe that animals are intelligent creatures capable of feeling pain and are “not ours to eat”. They oppose the use of all animal products and claim that vegan or vegetarian diets are more healthy and nutritious. They also believe that rearing animals for food is bad for the environment and inefficient and suggest that world food shortages could be solved by farming crops rather than animals.

However, vegans and vegetarians are still in a minority in the UK and the demand for meat and dairy products shows little sign of diminishing. Nevertheless there is a growing interest in the way food is produced and the treatment of animals in that process.

This has been largely a response to reports about the cruel treatment of animals in ‘factory farming’ – one of the most controversial and emotive issues – where the maximum number of animals are crammed into the minimum amount of space, unable to move freely, denied any kind of normal life and reduced to nothing more than products on a factory production line. These concerns are most well known in relation to battery hens and broiler chickens.

Farmers, however, are adamant that animal welfare is a priority for them. The National Farmers Union has said that factory farming “is not normal” in the UK and suggests that the Red Tractor assurance scheme, launched in 2000 to raise standards right across the food chain, is “a proven indicator of good animal welfare compliance.”

The Red Tractor kitemark now appears on billions of packs of meat, poultry and dairy products and is intended to reassure consumers that these products have been produced to the highest standards of animal welfare and environmental protection.

In the May 2022 Queen’s Speech the government announced details of its new Animal Welfare Bill. This contained provisions to ban the export of livestock for fattening or slaughter.

Animal experimentation
Another highly emotive and controversial issue is animal experimentation, whether that involves testing cosmetics and household products on animals, or using animals in medical research.

Opponents of vivisection believe that it is ethically unacceptable for animals to suffer physical or psychological pain during these tests. They also argue that because of the differences between humans and other animal species, test results can be misleading. The Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research claims that “in some instances, reliance on inaccurate animal ‘models’ of human disease have undoubtedly delayed medical progress.”

Proponents, however, insist that animal research has played, and is continuing to play, a vital role in treating and preventing many illnesses and diseases once thought incurable. Nevertheless, research is continuing into finding new ways to further promote the 3Rs scheme – to “reduce, refine and replace” the use of animals in research.

The Fur Trade
The fur trade is another cause of concern for animal welfare supporters. Although fur farming is banned in the UK, fur products can  currently still be sold here.

Fur coats are no longer the must-have fashion item they once were following an intensive anti-fur campaign by animal welfare groups. Many high-profile celebrities and fashion designers have rejected fur and several stores now refuse to stock fur products.

The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) believes that “wild or farmed, fur is a natural, renewable and sustainable resource that is kind to the environment and respectful of animals’ welfare.” The BFTA is a member of the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) which claims to “promote strict codes of practice that meet or exceed established and accepted animal welfare standards for wild and farmed fur.” Both the BFTA and IFTF “strongly condemn cruelty to animals and do not trade in endangered species.”

By contrast, Animal Defenders International claims that animals raised on fur farms or trapped in the wild are subject to “very cruel methods”. According to ADI, “what is of paramount concern to the fur farmers is not the welfare of the animals, but the preservation of their fur and through these methods, although incredibly painful for the animals, the fur is kept intact.”

With its new found legislative freedoms post Brexit, the UK government is believed to be considering bans of imports of fur from all species, albeit there could be exemptions for products used in religious ceremonies or for the continuous sale of vintage fur.

In 2021, the government launched a public consultation as to whether to impose a ban on the import and sale of fur in the UK.  The Prime Minister’s new wife, Carrie Johnson, is known to be a particularly strong opponent of fur.

Endangered Species, and treatment of animals around the world
Animal Defenders International remains concerned that threatened species are being illegally poached and traded for their skins or other body components, contributing to the extinction of species such as tigers, rhinos, leopards and ocelots.  There also remains widespread opposition to whaling.

These concerns are shared by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the charity believes that the internet has created new challenges in the fight against trade in endangered species. IFAW is calling for “robust domestic legislation” and an international action plan to tackle illegal wildlife trade on the internet.

Although animal welfare is a focus of political attention in the UK and across the European Union, many animal welfare organisations are concerned that animals in other parts of the world do not have the same kind of legislative protection and have supported a campaign, organised by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), to secure a commitment at the United Nations for a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW).

The UDAW would be an international agreement that animals are sentient beings, that animal welfare needs must be respected and that animal cruelty must end. The campaign is reported to have over two million supporters worldwide and the WSPA believes that securing such a commitment at the UN would create the required pressure for governments to put in place firm laws and enforcement for animal welfare.

In the May 2022 Queen’s Speech the government announced details of its new Animal Welfare Bill. This contained provision to update the Zoo Licensing Act to strengthen conservation requirements.

Animal use in circuses
In recent years, public attention has focused on the use of wild animals in circuses, notably the conditions in which the animals were kept, the training techniques to which they are subjected, and the tricks they are forced to perform, all of which it was argued were demeaning, cruel and inappropriate.

In 2019, Parliament passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 which prohibited the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in the UK.

Pest Control, Hunting and Shooting
Animal welfare organisations are equally concerned about the plight of wild animals which are often killed as a result of being regarded as pests or predators by farmers and land owners.

Badger culling to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis is one of the main controversies in this area. Bovine TB is a major problem for farmers, but a recent long-term review has concluded that culling is ineffective and suggests vaccination is a better long-term solution. This view is supported by the Badger Trust which believes that the way forward is an injectable and/or an oral vaccine for badgers and also ideally a vaccine for cattle.

Deer stalking, fox snaring and the trapping of wild birds and mammals are all equally controversial and fiercely opposed by animal welfare organisations.  A number of animal rights campaigners, such as PETA, are also opposed to recreational angling.

There remains an ongoing debate about the effectiveness and merits of the current legislative framework designed to ban fox hunting.

However, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that pest and predator control is a necessary and integral part of conservation and wildlife management. However, the BASC also stresses that “it is the responsibility of all those involved in pest and predator control to ensure their methods are legal, humane and carried out with sensitivity and respect for other countryside users.”

Domestic Pets
Finally domestic pets, in particular dogs, are often the subject of controversy, and not simply in relation to the way that particular pet owners treat (or mistreat) their animals.

One of the most recent controversies in this area has related to the issue of ‘handbag dogs’. The current fashion started by ‘celebrities’ for carrying bichon frise, chihuahuas, shih tzus and other tiny dogs in handbags has been strongly criticised by animal charities who warn that the dogs’ ability to behave normally is being restricted, which can in turn lead to behavioural problems. According to The Blue Cross, the number of miniature dogs given up or abandoned has more than tripled in the past five years.

Similar controversy has also been focused on the issue of dangerous dogs, on so-called ‘status dogs’ such as Rottweilers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers which are often bought to give their owners a tougher image, or which are also used for dog fighting and to intimidate other people. In addition to concerns about human safety, the RSPCA reports that these ‘status dogs’ often suffer violence at the hands of their owners and are forced to take part in fights which result in the dogs sustaining serious injuries.

In the May 2022 Queen’s Speech the government announced details of its new Animal Welfare Bill.  This contained plans to crack down on puppy smuggling and to introduce a new ‘pet abduction’ offence to reflect the ‘value’ that people place on their pets.

Statistics

In 2018 in the UK, it’s estimated that 12 million (44 percent of) households have pets with around 51 million pets owned. These include 9 million dogs and 8 million cats. [Source – Estimated figures from the Pet Food Manufacturer’s Association’].

In 2019, the RSPCA investigated more than 93,362 complaints of alleged cruelty, and secured 1,425 convictions by private prosecution to protect animals against those who break the laws. [Source – RSPCA]

The post Animal Welfare appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

Apprenticeships are real, paid jobs which incorporate on and off the job training.

Apprentices have the same rights as other employees, and the right to be paid at least at the level of the apprentice rate of the national minimum wage. Upon completing their contract, a successful apprentice will receive a nationally recognised qualification.

Apprenticeships are a key part of the government’s skills agenda. All UK political parties are committed to the benefits of apprenticeships, although there has been debate as to the pace at which the apprenticeship programme is rolled out, and its means of implementation.

The apprenticeship programme is viewed as an important way in which young people can be assisted to transition from education into the labour market.

Helping to tackle skills shortages, apprenticeships are universally viewed as one way to fix Britain’s productivity puzzle, with productivity largely stagnant since the 2008 financial crisis.

The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has said that, “A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker”.

The modern apprenticeship scheme began in 1994.

How does the apprentice system work?

There are two different types of apprenticeship schemes, frameworks and standards. Apprenticeship frameworks are being progressively phased out and replaced by the newer apprenticeship standards, which were introduced in 2014.

Apprenticeships can be studied at different qualification levels: Intermediate, Advanced, and Higher.

It can take between 1 and 6 years to complete an apprenticeship depending on the role which is chosen, the qualification level, and the candidate’s previous experience. At the end of an apprenticeship, the candidate achieves an equivalent education level. For example, if it is a level 3 apprenticeship, the candidate achieves the equivalent of an A-level.

A number of universities offer degree apprenticeships. These are typically available in vocational subjects that require a high level of academia, and range from aerospace, to electronic engineering, and the digital industries.

The government maintains and regulates a list of apprenticeship training providers. There are three types of training provider:

• A main training provider enters into contracts with employers that use the apprenticeship training.
• An employer provider directly trains their own employees or ones of another company.
• A supporting provider enters into subcontracts with main providers and employer providers to enhance apprenticeship training for employers and their apprentices.

How are apprenticeships funded?

The way in which the government funds the training and assessment costs of apprenticeships was revised in May 2017, with the introduction of the ‘apprenticeship levy’.

The Apprenticeship Levy is paid by employers with who have an annual wage bill in excess of £3 million.

The Apprenticeship levy is set at 0.5% of the value of the employer’s total wage bill, minus an apprenticeship levy allowance of £15,000 per financial year.

The levy is paid by a company through its PAYE contributions, with the money allocated to an apprenticeship service account by HMRC. In line with the specified criteria, funds in this account are then spent on apprenticeship training and assessment by the company concerned.

Since 2020, companies who are not mandated to pay the apprenticeship level (ie: have a wage bill of less than £3 million) have been able to create an apprenticeship service account to arrange their own apprenticeships

Apprenticeships are the responsibility of the Department for Education and the Skills Funding Agency in England.

Companies that do not need to pay the apprenticeship levy pay 5% 5% towards the cost of training and assessing an apprentice. The government will pay the rest (95%) up to the funding band maximum direct to the training provider.

• • Companies that do pay the apprenticeship levy receive funds to spend on training and assessing your apprentices. The government will add 10%.

History of apprenticeships in the UK

The Middle Ages
Apprenticeships in England can be traced back to the medieval craft guilds in the Middle Ages, when some families would send children away to live with host families.

According to the historian Charles More, ‘indentures were drawn up, binding servant to master and vice versa; in which the master personally taught the apprentice; took responsibility for the latter’s moral welfare; and gave him board and lodgings’.

The Statute of Artificers (1563) introduced the first national apprenticeship system of training into law. It outlined that the master should have no more than three apprentices and apprenticeships should last seven years. The Act was repealed 251 years later, partly due to conditions in factories and the perceived exploitation of young apprentices.

The Nineteenth Century
Apprenticeships became less common during the Industrial Revolution, partly due to conditions of employment in the factories. But they were still used in high-skill industries like shipbuilding.

As the 19th century progressed, many of the skills involved in manual trades were taught via formal apprenticeships. While predominantly ‘male’, girls did take up apprenticeships in jobs such as millinery and dressmaking.

The Twentieth Century
In the 1960s, a third of all boys left school to take up apprenticeships. However, numbers declined rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s, largely in parallel with the decline in manufacturing jobs.

Concern was also expressed as to the rigour being provided by apprenticeship programmes. In 1968 the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers’ Associations concluded that apprenticeships were ‘a farce’ and provided less training than a properly constituted course lasting only a few months’. The report concluded that, ‘The fact that a man has completed an apprenticeship does not therefore of itself guarantee that he has acquired any particular level of skills, or that he has passed any form of test of ability’.

By the mid 1990s, half as many apprentices were in employment as they had been in the late 1970s, and this prompted the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, to announce the launch of a new ‘Modern Apprenticeship’ scheme. The scheme was rolled out in 1994.

The ‘Modern Apprenticeship’ scheme aimed to ‘increase the number of young people obtaining the technical and craft skills the country has been lacking’. Unlike previous apprenticeships, modern apprenticeships were now established as properly paid jobs, with training leading to nationally recognised qualifications (NVQs).

The Twenty First Century
In 2004, the previous age limit of 25 was removed from apprenticeship schemes.

In 2012, new minimum standards were introduced to include training in maths and English for those who did not have a GCSE or equivalent in those subjects.

The Apprenticeship Levy was announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, in his July 2015 budget. It was introduced in 2017.

The degree apprenticeship programme was also introduced in 2015, with some 13,587 people starting a degree apprenticeship in England in 2018/19,

Statistics

In 2018/19, there were 742,400 people participating in an apprenticeship in England, with 393,400 apprenticeship starts and 185,100 apprenticeship achievements.

The age profile of people starting apprenticeships changed between 2017/18 and 2018/19, with a higher proportion of starts from apprentices over the age of 24.

The gender profile has also changed. The number of women and men starting apprenticeships were almost at the same level, with slightly more starts by women (50.1%). In 2017/18, there were slightly more starts by men (51%).

According to a government document, 83% of apprentices said their career prospects have improved as a result of their apprenticeship, and 70% of surveyed employers said apprenticeships improved their product quality and service.

Quotes

‘Around the world, apprenticeships have long been recognised as a crucial way to develop the skills wanted by employers. That is why the Government will increase the quality and quantity of apprenticeships in England, reaching three million starts in 2020′. –  Sajid Javid, Nick Morgan, Foreword,’ English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision’

‘Throughout my career, some of my best hires have been people who have bypassed the traditional route of university and learned their skills through apprenticeship schemes or alternative education courses’. – Entrepreneur Peter Jones.

‘Crucially, the apprenticeship schemes benefit apprentices themselves, who get a good foundation for a career, and it helps to open doors and break down barriers that some people face’ – Matt Hancock MP, former Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise.

‘A major barrier to economic growth is the lack of skilled staff in key sectors. Our data shows that it is getting harder for recruiters to find people for the jobs available and employers predict particular shortages in sourcing engineering, technical and healthcare professionals in the short to medium term. … There are three things we think the Government should be prioritising here: an effective careers guidance network, embedding better employability skills within education, and high-quality, employer-led apprenticeships’. – Kate Shoesmith, Head of Policy & Public Affairs, Recruitment & Employment Confederation

The post Apprenticeships appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The British police are famed across the world for being ‘unarmed’ – but this is a misnomer.

A proportion of the UK police are armed. Out of a total police force in England and Wales of 123,171 in 2019, the Home Office previously reported that 6,653 were armed officers(circa: 5.4%).

Home Office figures show that police weapons were discharged  4 times in the year to March 2021, reflecting wider crime during the covid pandemic, this was down from 13 times in 2019.

Three forces in the United Kingdom routinely arm officers, all in respect to the specific nature of their work:  the Ministry of Defence Police; the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who guard civil nuclear facilities, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Figures in the UK compare starkly to the United States where all officers were routinely armed, leading to there being 696,944 armed law enforcement officers.

Nonetheless, the public and the police themselves remain largely opposed to the routine carrying of firearms. A 2003 Police Federation survey found 80 per cent of officers were opposed to the police being armed.

How UK armed police operate 

Armed response units or police firearms units are teams of armed Police Officers tasked with countering crimes committed by armed criminals. Each UK police force has its own firearms team of some form.   The most well known firearms unit is the Met Police’s SCO19.

Parts of London are specifically patrolled by Armed Response Vehicles, whose crew of three are armed with Glock 17 self-loading pistols and Heckler and Koch MP5 carbines.

The use of firearms by armed UK police remains regulated and restricted to certain specialised police units. The guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers advises that firearms should be used only when absolutely necessary after conventional methods have failed; warnings must be given of intention to fire, and the target’s right to life should be considered.

All the forces in the UK are also issued with the ‘Firearms Guidance to Police’ manual, a lengthy document detailing the legal regulation of firearms in the UK and covering the vast range of domestic legislation and international guidance on firearms use. Codes of practice are also issued by the Home Office providing comprehensive guidance on the policy and use of firearms and less lethal weapons by police.

An Authorised Firearms Officer is the basic designation for an officer who has received firearms training and has been authorised to carry them when on duty.

Authorised Firearms Officers are deployed in a wide variety of roles ranged from Armed Response Vehicle teams, Specialist Firearms Officers, Close Protection Officer, Personal Protection Officer and Tactical Support Officer.

Armed Response Vehicle Officers are typically those that respond to spontaneous firearms incidents.  As well as typically carrying a self loading pistol, officers have access to long arms that are stored securely in the vehicle. Specialist Firearms Officers typically carry out pre-planned and authorised operations against criminals suspected of being in possession of firearms

On the very rare occasions that police officers discharge their weapons and this leads to a death of person, there is then a full investigation by the Independent office for police conduct (IOPC) into the incident. In these investigations, police officers will have legal representation as they are potentially investigated for what in some cases can amount to allegations that they may have committed criminal offences..

UK armed police – Statistics

Statistics on police use of firearms in England and Wales between April 2018 and March 2019 showed the following:

There were 20,186 police firearms operations in the financial year ending March 2019.  The Metropolitan Police Service and West Midlands Police accounted for 40% of these operations. Of the 20,186 operations, 88% (17,742) involved an Armed Response Vehicle.[Source – Home Office]

There were 13 incidents in which police firearms were discharged, compared with 8 incidents during the previous year. [Source – Home Office]

There were 6,653 armed officers as at March 2019. [Source – Home Office]

The history of armed police in Britain  

Early years
The nearest a mainland British police force ever came to being routinely armed was in 1884 in London, following the murder of two officers. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner of the day gave officers permission to carry revolvers on night patrols. This persisted until 1936 when guns were required to be kept in a locked cupboard at police stations.

Police have carried the ‘truncheon’ since their modern formation under legislation introduced in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel. This short wooden club remained in service, relatively unchanged until the 1990s, when police weaponry began to change dramatically.

In 1992 extensive scientific testing was carried out on straight baton alternatives to the truncheon including measuring injury potential. In-force trials were undertaken and the Home Secretary backed recommendations that the expandable side-handled baton (ESHB) be allowed to replace the truncheon.

Another change introduced in the 1990s was the adoption of rigid-link handcuffs, which in 1991 replaced the old chain-linked handcuffs.

In August 1996 the chief constables were given permission to introduce CS spray into their forces. This followed trials earlier in the year which had identified no significant problems: it was concluded that the spray was a safer option, both for the public and for the police, than the use of batons.

A 1998 Police Complaints Authority report warned that US-style baton training regimes and a lack of refresher training was resulting in an excessive number of injuries.  A 2000 report expressed concern about a lack of research into the health effects of CS gas, following a number of deaths related to incidents involving its use.

The 1990s – A rise in armed police 
The police have been armed, increasingly to respond to mounting levels of violent crime and the on-going terrorist threat.

Throughout the 1990s, the reform of police equipment was objected to in some quarters as a form of militarisation and Americanisation of an organisation that historically had had no need for lethal weapons. Opponents also argued that arming the police more heavily would harm carefully built community relations.

On the other hand, the 1980s and 1990s saw rising violent crime, and the increased use of firearms by criminals. The 1993 killing of PC Pat Dunne in Clapham, south London, was a particular watershed.

In the early 2000s, there were a number of controversies involving armed police, including the shooting of a man in Brixton in 2001. After firing six rounds into the target, the police discovered that the lethal firearm they thought the man was carrying was actually a cigarette lighter shaped as a gun. This incident followed the shooting of Harry Stanley, shot dead by armed police in East London in 1999 as he was returning home from the pub carrying a coffee table leg in a plastic bag.

In July 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead at Stockwell Tube Station by police who had mistaken him for a terrorist. The Crown Prosecution Service decided there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecutions against any individual officers, but implemented proceedings in 2007 against the office of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police for failing to protect the health, safety and welfare of Mr de Menezes. The Metropolitan Police Service was fined £175,000 with £385,000 costs.

These incidents led some to call for the police to use only non-lethal weapons in all operations.

Alternatives to conventional firearms
The Home Office regularly carries out assessments on – and introduces when possible – equipment that is less lethal than conventional firearms.

In 2004 Taser stun guns were made available to authorised firearms officers in England and Wales and a twelve month trial began in September 2007 in ten police forces to decide whether Tasers should be issued to specially trained police units who are not firearms officers. Following the success of the trial it was decided to allow Chief Officers of all forces in England and Wales to extend Taser use to specially trained units with effect from 1st December 2008.

In June 2005 the attenuating energy projectile (AEP) was introduced into operational service as the successor to the L21A1 baton round. It is said to be significantly safer, whilst retaining overall effectiveness.

And research continues into the development of the discriminating irritant projectile (DIP). The objective for the DIP is to deliver a discrete, localized cloud or burst of sensory irritant in the immediate proximity of an individual aggressor. It is not intended to cause serious or life threatening injury.

In the Summer of 2010 the Government carried out a review into the on-going programme of work to improve the police and military response to a possible terrorist attack, which resulted in the programme being “significantly expanded and accelerated”:

All firearms officers in England and Wales now have access to higher calibre weaponry, enhanced tactics and training.  There is permanent additional police firearms capacity in major cities and improved procedures to provide rapid back-up from neighbouring areas.

During riots in August 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that police would be allowed to use rubber bullets – known as baton rounds – and also that the water cannon stationed in Northern Ireland was available to be deployed within 24 hours notice. However, both tactics were widely opposed, the former because rubber bullets have been reported to have killed several demonstrators in the past, and the latter because it would be not be effective in that particular situation.

Quotes

“Sadly, due to events in our history including the tragedies at Hungerford and Dunblane , Whitehaven,   and more recently the increased threat to the UK from international and Home Grown Terrorism we need to have officers with firearms to protect us all”….”What must be remembered is that the police officers who carry firearms are all volunteers. They do not want to have to shoot anyone, and the work they perform is incredibly difficult and dangerous”. – Police Firearms Officers Association – Website – 2021

“I think we are clear we have a British model of policing that is one that our police very much support. I think that routine unarmed policing that goes on in our streets is right. I don’t think this is the time to be calling for the arming of police.” – Theresa May, during her time as Home Secretary.

COP26 will see largest ever deployment of armed officers in Scotland

US Taser death prompts call for UK rethink

Tasers to spread out across country

The post Armed Police UK appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

While AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, many experts argue this label is misleading as these programmes don’t have their own conscious ‘intelligence’. Instead, these programmes are able to rapidly develop and adapt using machine learning, which allows computers to make decisions and predictions without being directly programmed to do so. The process uses algorithms, deep learning, and a neural network to build models that can be applied to a whole host of different purposes, including eloquent and informative chatbots (also called large language models); generating detailed and accurate images from text prompts; and copying celebrities’ voices to say whatever the user wishes.

Recently, this machine learning has allowed AI technology to become an immensely powerful tool that has surprised users by how accurate and detailed it can be. The chatbot ‘Chat GPT’ reached over 100 million users just two months after launching, and companies across the globe are working at break-neck speed to implement AI programmes into their businesses and develop the technology even further.

After the AI summit, Rishi Sunak has a potential legacy to cite — and a new dividing line with Labour

How could AI impact politics?

Currently, AI’s impact on politics remains limited as tech companies place strict regulations on what their AI is allowed to produce, and it can’t be anything too political. While many politicians agree that these regulations should be put in place, Eric Wilson, managing partner at Startup Caucus, an incubator for Republican campaign tech, would like to see tech plans loosen these restriction, at least when it comes to properly registered campaigns and committees.

The biggest fear among AI developers and politicians when it comes to AI’s use in politics is that it could be used to create deception and help spread misinformation – undermining the democratic process. There is particular concern over the use of ‘deepfakes’ which is when AI is used to make it appear as if someone is saying or doing something they aren’t.

Deepfakes are already spreading across the internet, in 2018 a Belgian political party released a deepfake video of Donald Trump giving a speech calling on Belgium to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. As AI advances, what is real and what is fake will become harder to distinguish, making it easier for politicians to spread convincing misinformation and undermine trust.

However, Wilson remains sanguine about the potential for AI in politics, noting that deepfakes are yet to be used by any legitimate political actor, and the best way for politicians to fight against misinformation spread by an AI model is to use other AI tools to help spot fakes.

Whatever the future regulations on AI will be, there is little doubt that its role in politics will continue to increase. In June 2023, Tony Blair delivered a speech to politicians where he remarked that AI will “change everything” and the future of politics will be “about understanding [AI] and dealing with it”.

The following month, MIT Technology Review released a policy report on testable milestones to measure the impact of AI on politics. The milestones range from having legislation drafted or testimony submitted under the name of AI (which they believe is not far from happening) to AI achieving a coordinated policy outcome across multiple jurisdictions.

What do the developments in AI mean for the UK and what is the current policy?

AI’s power and usefulness is undeniable, something politicians and influential figures are quick to acknowledge. Bill Gates called artificial intelligence  the most important tech advancement in decades and is one of the most optimistic proponents of the technology.

Mr Gates regularly talks about how an AI system can be vital in improving education for the poorest; improving healthcare and diagnoses; improving business productivity; and improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of public services.

For the UK in particular, artificial intelligence provides an opportunity to become a global leader in technology, providing further jobs, wealth, and geopolitical influence. This is because the UK has already invested significantly in the sector, is home to some of the leading AI startups, and has a large talent pool. According to Tortoise Media’s Global AI Index, the UK ranks 4^th when it comes to their level of investment, innovation and implementation of artificial intelligence – only behind the US, China and Singapore. According to government data, AI industries already employ over 50,000 in the UK and generate £3.7 billion for the economy.

Global representatives gather for Sunak’s AI summit with threat of human extinction ‘potentially on the table’

Yet leaving the power of AI completely unregulated is clearly dangerous and has already led to job losses and an increase in misinformation. Further risks to privacy, human rights and fairness are also of great concern as the technology advances. In March 2023, an open letter was signed by tech leaders like Steve Wozniak and Elon Musk calling for a six-month halt in the development of advanced AI until we have robust governance systems.

As a result of the potential risks and benefits ofAI being both immense and uncertain, the government has yet to outline extensive and clear regulations on the technology. While the EU is close to passing an AI Act which would place significant regulation on development and use of the programmes, the UK is keen to be seen as far more open to AI innovation.

To help with this, the government launched the AI Foundation Model Taskforce in June 2023. The taskforce will be chaired by the tech entrepreneur Ian Hogarth and will be given £100 million in funding; its mission is to lead AI safety research and drive forward opportunities.

The taskforce will work within the guidance set out on the government’s white paper on artificial intelligence  from March 2023. The paper is designed to provide some protections on the dangers of AI by giving guidance on how to drive safe and responsible innovation. The white paper outlines that the government has no intention of creating a separate AI regulator, but will empower existing ones to manage the risks of the technology being used in the sectors.

The white paper also outlines the government’s five key principles when it comes to its AI policy: safety, transparency, fairness, accountability, and contestability.

In the autumn of 2023 the UK government hosted a global conference on artificial intelligence at Bletchley Park with the aim of achieving a global framework on the safety of AI. It was part of Rishi Sunak’s effort to win geopolitical influence as AI becomes increasingly powerful by positioning the UK as the natural hub for efforts to regulate the industry on a global scale.

What are the Conservatives’ views on AI?

Although Mr Sunak does acknowledge the “existential risks” posed by AI (which is why he has called for an international summit), he believes the development of AI is crucial in creating wealth and geopolitical influence to help revive the Conservative’s chances of winning the next general election. Conservative governments have already invested £2.3 billion into AI since 2014 and a new 10-year plan was launched in 2021 to “make the UK a global AI superpower”.

As a result, Mr Sunak is keen to be seen as pro-innovation and pro-AI. He regularly hosts leaders from the tech world including Bill Gates and Sam Altman as well as delivering a speech at London’s Tech Week in June 2023.

In a press conference at the close of the AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park in November 2023, Sunak acknowledged that “binding” rules are likely to be needed for the technology

However, he clarified that now is not the time to move quickly with legislation. The Bletchley Park agreement – which recognises that governments and companies have a role to play in ensuring external vetting of AI – serves as an example of what the government should be doing, he insisted.

Rishi Sunak declares achievements of AI summit ‘will tip the balance in favour of humanity’

Some Conservative MPs are more concerned by the risks posed by artificial intelligence. In May 2023, former Justice secretary Robert Buckland warned that the government needs to implement more regulation to mitigate the potential risks to justice and human rights posed by AI.

What are Labour’s views on AI?

Like the Conservatives, Labour remains optimistic about AI’s potential but would ultimately go about regulating it in a different way. Keir Starmer has also spoken about the benefits of AI but made it clear that if it’s not managed properly, It could lead to job losses mirroring those from the deindustrialisation of the 1980s.

Peter Kyle MP, shadow technology secretary, has said Labour would urgently introduce binding requirements for companies developing powerful artificial intelligence.

Labour has promised to force firms to report before they train models over a certain capability threshold and to carry out safety tests strengthened by independent oversight if it wins the next election.

Kyle said: “AI has the potential to transform the world and deliver life-changing benefits for working people. From delivering earlier cancer diagnosis, to relieving traffic congestion, AI can be a force for good.

“But to secure these benefits we must get on top of the risks and build public trust. It is not good enough for our ‘inaction man’ Prime Minister to say he will not rush to take action, having told the public that there are national security risks which could end our way of life.”

Lucy Powell, the former Shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has a slightly different vision for AI and according to a Politico report from July 2023, worked to soften Labour’s stance against big tech, but argued for more stringent AI regulation to protect workers’ rights.

Quotes

“The development of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocessor, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change the way people work, learn, travel, get health care, and communicate with each other. Entire industries will reorient around it. Businesses will distinguish themselves by how well they use it.” Bill Gates, March 2023

“Advanced artificial intelligence  could represent a profound change in the history of life on Earth, and should be planned for and managed with commensurate care and resources. Unfortunately, this level of planning and management is not happening, even though recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control.” Open letter signed by tech experts including Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak

“AI is one of this Government’s five technologies of tomorrow—bringing stronger growth, better jobs, and bold new discoveries. As a general purpose technology, AI is already delivering wide social and economic benefits, from medical advances to the mitigation of climate change.” Michelle Donelan,The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

“Let us seize this opportunity of modernisation and reform, remembering this is about people and our country. We can put the technology revolution at the heart of our political agenda, our vision for a modern, reformed Britain. A strong, successful and sustainable economy. A technology revolution that works in the interests of the British people. A Britain that is upgraded so that it works once again.” Darren Jones, Labour MP

“It seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers… They would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore, we should have to expect the machines to take control.” Alan Turing, founder of the computer.

Rishi Sunak warns of ‘new dangers and new fears’ to come with AI — PM’s speech as it happened

The post Artificial Intelligence Policy appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

What is arts funding?

Arts funding typically refers to the financial support provided to the Arts sector by the Government.

This money is primarily gathered through national lottery funding and general taxation, and allocated through a grant system by a few arts funding bodies.

Government support for the arts is directed at both the performing arts and the visual arts. Performing arts is the umbrella term for all creative activity which is performed, or showcased, in front of an audience. Visual art relates to creative works that are primarily visual in nature, such as drawing, painting, sculpture, printmaking, design, crafts, photography and ceramics. .

Since the Second World War, UK arts industries have operated through a mixed funding model, whereby earned revenue is complemented by public funds and private investment.

Many arts and cultural organisations rely on the sustained addition of government funds for survival.

There is a fierce political debate about the extent to which the arts should be publicly funded.

The primary funding organisation for the artists for many years was the Arts Council of Great Britain. In the late 1990s, the Arts Council was divided into separate national bodies to reflect the UK’s new devolved government structure. In Scotland, the administration of project grants was taken over by Creative Scotland.

Between 2018 and 2022, the Arts Council of England pledged to invest £407 million per year into 828 arts organisations, museums and libraries.

Speaking to a House of Commons Committee in May 2022, the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries described the system for distributing arts and culture funding around England – a function carried out by Arst Council England as “not perfect”, but said there were no plans to axe the organisation.

In addition to grants provided by the Arts Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport also provides direct funding to museums and galleries deemed of national importance. These include The National Gallery, The National Portrait Gallery and Tate Galleries.

The case made for publicly funding the arts

Those championing the use of public funding to support the arts industry, claim that such support is funding a collective and cultural good.

It is argued that arts organisations make a distinctive contribution to wider civic health. As such if the cost of putting on arts activity, whether a performance or running an exhibition, is likely to exceed the income generated from ticket sales or sponsorship, it is considered right that the industry should receive support from public funding to allow the performance or exhibition to occur.

The Chair of Arts Council of England, Sir Nicholas Serota, has said, “If they [an arts organisation] had a bit more money, they would do something rather wonderful with it.”

Those making the case for increased public funding for the arts also express the view that the current public annual funding level of £900 million is relatively modest, amounting to around £33 per household a year. Campaigners point to how public funding can help make the arts, and artistic experiences, accessible to all.

Moreover, it is claimed that having access to public support is vital if performers are to effectively develop new, experimental or challenging work. It is said that funding provides the space for an individual artist to take risks and make the leaps that challenge us to think differently, which it is suggested, is one of the great benefits of an arts project.

Finally it is claimed that public funding of the arts represents a form of investment – one that helps support creative industries and generates the opportunity for wider economic growth. It is argued that when the cultural sector is supported, there are positive effects on peripheral industries such as accommodation providers, hospitality, and those that work to supply arts productions.

The case made for limiting public funding of the arts

Those arguing against the public funding of the arts typically make a number of counter points, around both the perceived morality and efficacy of government funding for the arts.

Firstly, it is claimed that the funding of the arts, just represents one group in society’s view on what is important. As such it is argued that another group, for example those who may prefer to spend their time watching football or snooker, are in effect simply forced to contribute to subsidise the artistic hobbies and pleasures of another group in society.

It is suggested that if the arts are so essential for our collective culture, there should be no problem financing them from voluntary sources.

Allied to this line of criticism is the notion that the public funding of the arts supports those in society who already possess high levels of affluence. According to a ComRes survey of 1,750 English adults, 44% of those from the highest socio-economic bracket felt that public funding of arts and cultures brought benefit to them or their family. However, this dropped to 25% in lower socio-economic income groups. Campaigners argue accordingly that there are more deserving destinations for scarce public funds.

Secondly, those critical of the public funding of the arts, argue that public funding is not quite as effective as it sometimes claimed. It is suggested that there is little difference in the ticket prices at arts venues which are publicly funded, compared to those arts venues which are not publicly funded. This is said to raise questions as to whether public funding is actually making the arts more accessible.

Thirdly, it is claimed that public support of the arts serves to dilute the relationship between the provider and the consumer, and that this reduces the pressure to provide a quality offering. It is claimed that when there is large government support, accountability breaks down, and the relationships between the providers of the arts, and those attending performances or visiting exhibitions, or those giving voluntary donations, are weakened.

Lastly there has been criticism of the way in which projects are funded. It is pointed out how assessing the quality of art is a subjective process. As such, project funding is approved or rejected by a small committee of specialists whose views may not align with the wider community. Opponents of arts funding also suggest that this process is administratively complicated and costly.

Arts Funding and the Covid 19 crisis

During the 2020/21 Covid 19 pandemic, measures taken to reduce the spread of the virus placed severe restrictions on cultural events and arts providers. For over a year, in-person gatherings were either prohibited or allowed in limited capacities. Large numbers of concerts, exhibitions, showcases and performances were subsequently unable to proceed.

In July 2020, the UK Government announced a support package of £1.57 billion in emergency funding to help the arts sector weather the effects of the pandemic. The devolved administrations received additional funds of £97 million (Scotland), £59 million (Wales) and £33 million (Northern Ireland) for this purpose.

Allied to the culture recovery fund, in his October 2021 budget, Chancellor Rishi Sunak further announced that tax relief for museums and galleries would be extended for two years to March 2024.

Statistics

In 2015, the measure of the gross output of the UK’s arts and culture industry registered an estimated £20 billion. [Source – Arts Council Report, 2017]

According to the Arts Council England, the arts and culture industry was responsible for 137,250 jobs in 2016 [Source – CEBR/Arts Council England report, April 2019]

The UK has four of the top 10 most visited museums in the world. According to 2018 visitor data published in the Art Newspaper, Tate Modern was the most visited institution (5th), followed by the British Museum (6th), the National Gallery (7th) and the Victoria & Albert Museum (10th).

According to figures from UK Theatre and the Society of London Theatre, theatres across the UK attracted more than 34m visitors in 2018, generating ticket revenues of £1.28bn from 62,945 performances.

Only 9% of English adults think Government spending on the arts should be increased, compared to 45% who think it should be decreased. [Source – ComRes, October 2015, survey of 1,750 English adults]

The post Arts Funding appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

In select circumstances, a proportion of animals are killed to reduce the total population size of the species. This practice is known as culling.

In the United Kingdom there are estimated to be between 250,000 and 400,000 badgers.  This amounts to a quarter of the world’s population of badgers.

In the United Kingdom, culling badgers is permitted under licence in designated areas.

Badgers are culled specifically so to control the incidence of bovine tuberculosis (tb), a disease that kills cattle and impacts on farmers.  Bovine tb is said to be contracted and spread by badgers.

In 2011, the Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed there was low risk of human beings contracting the disease from dairy milk. This is due to measures such as milk pasteurisation and the BCG vaccine – the vaccine primarily used against tuberculosis.

The issue of badger culling has been at the centre of fierce scientific arguments in recent years.

The case for badger culling

Bovine tuberculosis bacteria spread through contaminated pasture and manure.

The urine of infected badgers contains a high proportion of active bacteria, resulting in a high infection rate of 4-6%. When a badger becomes infected, the bacteria may be transmitted to cattle.

Supporters of badger culling include the National Farmers Union. Farmers Groups have stressed the necessity of reducing bovine tuberculosis so to reduce the pressure and financial impact on farmers.

Badger culling programmes that reduce bovine TB are also presented as a way of reducing the cost on taxpayers.

Farmers receive compensation for infected cattle which are slaughtered following a positive tuberculosis result.  In 2010-11, almost 25,000 cattle were slaughtered in England after contracting bovine tuberculosis. According to DEFRA, the estimated cost of disease control to the taxpayer was some £91 million; 90% of this was attributed to government-funded cattle testing programmes and compensation to farmers.

The case against badger culling

The most vocal objections to badger culls come from animal welfare groups. These include the RSPCA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), The Badger Trust and Humane Society International. Their overarching stance is that the arbitrary slaughter of animals is unjustified.

Under a badger cull, badgers are also shot before having been tested for tuberculosis, which implies that healthy and infected badgers are targeted in equal measure.

These groups lobby for the Government to abandon lawful badger culls in exchange for more humane means of controlling the disease. Such alternatives programmes include regular testing on cattle, badger and cattle vaccination, and limiting the movement of cattle to isolated areas.

Where badger culling has gone ahead, animal rights activists take particular issue with termination techniques. The Badger Trust have suggested that as many as a fifth of badgers took more than five minutes to die when shot at from afar.

Opponents of badger culling also point to the cost of the badger culling programme.  They frequently take issue with those scientific claims that suggest badger culling does materially impact on the levels of bovine tuberculosis in cattle.

A history of badger culling in the UK

In the mid-1900s, it was widely thought that bovine tuberculosis had been eradicated in the UK. This assumption was dashed in 1971 when a population of infected badgers was discovered in Gloucestershire.

From the late 1980s, the disease became increasingly prevalent throughout England and Wales. This was attributed to a lack of badger control.

Between 1998 and 2005, the Government launched Randomised Badger Culling Trials (RBCT) and reviewed their impact on controlling the incidence of the disease.

Data gathered from the trials revealed that culling reduced the incidence of bovine tb by 19% in sampled areas. However, this coincided with a 29% increase within 2km of the culling area; a ‘perturbation effect’, whereby culling encourages the migration of badgers to new territories.

In 2007, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, David Miliband, stated that the overall benefits of culling were “unlikely to contribute usefully to the control of cattle TB in Britain.”

Miliband’s successor Hilary Benn refused to licence a badger cull, but committed to alternative measures such as a £20 million contribution to developing livestock vaccines.

Following the 2010 general election, badger culls re-emerged. The newly appointed Secretary of State for the Environment and Agriculture, Caroline Spelman, initiated a controlled culling programme in the UK’s worst-affected areas as part of the new Bovine TB Eradication Programme for England.

In response to this, MPs voted 147 in favour (with 28 against) of a motion to stop the cull. The vote followed a petition which had amassed around a quarter of a million signatories by June 2013.

Nonetheless, in August 2013, culls were formerly authorised in Somerset and Gloucestershire to reduce the badger population by 70% in each designated area. The Government inferred from the trials that a sustained cull could bring about a 9-16% reduction in tuberculosis incidence over a period of nine years.

Following additional trials in 2014, Defra noted the need for “continued training of contractors, to ensure high standards of effectiveness, humaneness and safety”.

In response to growing protest, the Government later voiced plans to phase out culls in preference for cattle and badger vaccination schemes. This pledge was supported by scientific breakthroughs in tests to be trialled alongside the existing vaccines. This is thought to resolve the previous downfall whereby vaccinated animals could not be differentiated from those carrying the disease.

Despite these developments, the government confirmed its plans to extend the cull to 11 new areas in 2019. These culls were to span 40 regions from Cornwall to Cumbria. The chief executive of the Badger Trust, Dominic Dyer, referred to the plans as “an unforgivable act of ecological vandalism”.

In the Autumn of 2020, the Government’s announced a repeal of the planned Derbyshire cull. Many have speculated that this U-Turn might be related to the influence of the Prime Minister’s partner, Carrie Symonds. Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, is a vocal animal rights defender and patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation.

Quotes

“It’s almost beyond belief that the government is blundering ahead with a second year of inept and barbaric badger killing.” Brian May, guitarist of the band Queen and leading badger cull opponent.

Responding to the limited success of the 2013 culling trials, Owen Paterson, the then Environment Secretary famously claimed that “the badgers moved the goalposts”.

Statistics

According to the RSPCA, the infection rate of bovine tuberculosis among badgers is 4-6%.

According to Defra, the estimated average cost of a bovine TB breakdown on a UK farm is £34,000. In the past ten years, it has cost the taxpayer £500 million to control the disease in England.

The post Badger Culling appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The Bank of England is the UK’s central bank and is owned by the UK government. The UK government appoint all of the bank’s senior officials including its Governor.

However since a reform in 1997, the Bank of England has been independent from government in terms of how it carries out its responsibilities.

The Bank currently has responsibility for financial stability, the regulation of banks and insurance companies, and for monetary policy.

Monetary policy is the action taken by a country to determine how much money is in the economy and how much it costs to borrow. There are two principle monetary policy tools: the interest rate (the rate the banks other charge to borrow money from the Central Bank), and the creation of money to support the purchase of corporate or government bonds which is otherwise known as quantitative easing.

Monetary policy has a significant impact on the functioning of the economy as a whole, influencing growth, exchange rates, inflation, asset prices and the expectations and confidence of the market.

In 2022, with inflation rising to levels not seen for a generation and with the Bank of England raising interest rates, fresh attention was being directed towards the political accountability of the Bank.

What is the Monetary Policy Committee?

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is a specialised economic advisory panel that is responsible for setting the UK’s short-term base interest rate.

The framework under which the Committee sets monetary policy is laid down by a remit letter sent annually by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor of the Bank of England..

There are nine MPC members: the Bank’s Governor, the two Deputy Governors, the Chief Economist, the Executive Director for Market Operations and four external members appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Each member has expertise in the field of economics and monetary policy. A Treasury representative attends meetings to ensure that the MPC is fully briefed on fiscal policy.

The MPC convenes and announces policy eight times a year (every 6 weeks). It considers a broad range of economic data before publicly announcing its revised decisions on interest rates. It can take as long as two years for monetary policy to feed through into the behavior in the economy so MPC members consider the economic outlook for the forthcoming years. Decisions are taken on the basis of a majority vote. The MPC also publishes a quarterly inflation report detailing prospects for the inflation rate in relation to the budget target.

The full minutes of each meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee are published, and a full press conference is held after each meeting. Members of the MPC are also regularly called to give evidence in front of the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee.

History of Bank of England Independence

Prior to 1946, the Bank of England had existed as a private bank owned by a number of private shareholders.

After the Second World War, the Bank was nationalised by the government. For the ensuing half a century, the government was directly involved in the Bank’s operations and the Chancellor of the Exchequer set UK interest rates.

In 1997, the new Labour Government announced the independence of the Bank of England. This move gave the Bank of England the power to set interest rates itself.

The move followed a period of high interest rates in the early 1980s, and again in the early 1990s when interest rates peaked at 15 per cent. The Blair government felt that Ministerial control over interest rates was not conducive to long-term economic stability, as multiple political factors had long clouded economic judgments about what monetary policy should be used for.

The creation of an independent Bank of England and the separation of monetary and fiscal policy control caused a great deal of controversy when the plans were first announced.  The move came during a period when a number of central banks around the world were gaining greater independence.

As part of the reform, the Treasury set a new inflation target, and it would be the Bank’s duty to use its power to adhere to that target.

This new power was formalised by the Bank of England Act 1998, which also created the Monetary Policy Committee on a statutory basis, requiring the Bank to “maintain price stability, and, subject to that, to support the economic policy of HM Government including its objectives for growth and employment.”

The Chancellor restates the inflation target each year. It remained at 2.5 per cent, based on the RPIX measure of inflation, from 1997 until December 2003, when it was changed to 2.0 per cent, based on the new harmonised Consumer Price Index measure of inflation. If the actual rate of inflation misses the target by more than one per cent, the Bank must provide an explanation.

The decision to vest power in the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee was a major reform, as centrally held control of such monetary policy was historically vested in the elected body and was traditionally a major feature of Governmental power.

To temper any concerns about the transfer of this power, the Government retained ultimate sovereignty over the setting of the rate and granted only operational control over the attainment of a centrally determined inflation target.

The debate around Bank of England independence

Over the years there has been a broad degree of consensus that the Monetary Policy Committee has been a success, exemplified by the subsequent period of consistently low interest rates. The incoming coalition government in 2010 accepted the new status quo of an independent Bank of England.

Those critical of an independent Bank of England nonetheless point out that the Bank’s success in controlling interest rates and inflation, has occurred during a wider period in which most advanced economies have all exuded low and stable inflation despite varying degrees of central bank independence.

Those initially supportive of Bank of England independence pointed to academic evidence which suggested that independent central banks better protected the currency from politically engineered business cycles, and over time would better overcome inconsistency problems (Barro and Gordon 1983, Rogoff 1985). Independence was seen as a way of allowing the Bank of England to focus more effectively on the technical task of achieving a low inflation target, free from political interference or other populist influences.

Opponents claimed that it would lead to a poorly co-ordinated economic policy, and would potentially lead to conflict between fiscal and monetary policy in which the two policies could be pulling in different directions.  In response, the Government highlighted the role the Treasury plays in keeping the MPC informed of fiscal management policy and stressed the Treasury’s ultimate veto if it feels rates should be set at a different level.

Those who remain opposed to the independence of the Bank of England criticize the power that the move provides to central bankers who are unelected, and argue that the lack of political oversight is undemocratic.

Some critics further suggest that the policy could lead to policy failures that might otherwise be prevented by political oversight. Professor Jacqueline Best of the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa had described the role of independent central banks in modern liberal democracies as paradoxical, saying, “Their work is highly technical, yet the consequences of their actions are inevitably political, producing big winners and losers.”

Others critics have pointed to how recent Governors of the Bank of England, in particular Mark Carney, have also become drawn into the political debate, and that the independence of the Bank has somehow increased their freedom to do so.  These criticisms were at their strongest during the debate around Britain’s membership of the European Union, with pro Brexit supporters attacking comments made by the Governor of the Bank, which they construed as him becoming involved in politics.

There have also been complaints about the willingness of lenders and banks to respond to the cuts in base rates being made by the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. This results in the benefits of reductions not being passed on to borrowers. In November 2008 when the global economic crisis led to an unprecedented 1.5 percentage points cut in the base rate, banks such as HBOS, Lloyd’s TSB and Abbey all passed on the full 1.5% cut to borrowers with standard variable rate (SVR) mortgages. But banks were then said to have warned that following this unexpectedly high reduction, any further cuts would not be passed on in full.  Bank interest rates remain considerably above the base rate.

Quotes

“Moving to a world of steady growth, inflation close to our 2% target, and a more normal level of interest rates, will take time. There is a limit to what monetary policy can achieve when real adjustments are required. But with falling inflation, and the prospect of an end to the squeeze in real incomes leading to a recovery in growth, we are moving in the right direction” – Governor Sir Mervyn King; Inflation report press conference – February 2012

“It’s becoming clear that monetary policy has impacts that are of enormous political significance, and it isn’t being closely scrutinised by [the UK] parliament.” – Fran Boait, Executive Director of campaign group Positive Money

“Independence means that we can promote the good of the people of the UK by maintaining monetary and financial stability, free from political influence” – Bank of England website.

The post Bank of England Independence appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The BBC Charter sets out its four public purposes. The first of these is “to provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them.” In keeping with this, the corporation describes itself as “impartial and independent”.

The Broadcasting Code of the regulator, OFCOM, requires the BBC to achieve “due impartiality in all its output”. This is seen as particularly important given that roughly 65%of the BBC’s revenue  is generated from a compulsory licence fee, meaning that the majority of the broadcaster’s funding comes from the British public.

Nonetheless, the BBC is routinely accused of displaying political bias in its media output.

In May 2023,YouGov’s biannual public opinion tracker reported that only 22% of people think the BBC  “is generally neutral”. According to other YouGov trackers taken at the same time, the BBC ranked lower than both Channel 4 (at 26%) and ITV (at 24%) when assessing their impartiality.

The perceived partiality of the BBC comes from both sides of the political spectrum. Of the people in the YouGov survey who identified as supporting the Conservatives, 15% thought the BBC is generally a little more favourable towards the left and 23% thought they were much more favourable. Conversely, 26% of those who identified as supporting Labour thought the BBC is generally a little more favourable to the right and 20% thought they were much more favourable.

Opinions likewise differ among age brackets, with those aged 18-24 most likely to see the BBC as neutral (at 27%) and those aged 25-49 least likely (at 19%) but all age brackets saw little confidence in the BBC’s partiality. Those in Scotland and Wales were also most sceptical of the BBC’s neutrality, at 18% and 19%, respectively.

This wide-ranging public concern over the BBC’s partiality was highlighted in Ofcom’s 2021-2022 annual report of the broadcaster, which said the BBC must continue to focus on addressing audience perceptions of impartiality and was “a key area of concern”.

In May 2022, the then culture secretary, Nadine Dorries announced a review into BBC impartiality. The probe will focus on the BBC’s compliance with editorial standards and evaluate how it represents audiences from working-class backgrounds. The Mid-Term Review must be completed between 2022 and 2024.

Biased BBC? – A history of the discussion

Accusations of left-wing bias and the BBC date back to the 1980s, when the BBC’s reporting of the Falklands War generated the wrath of the Thatcher government.

These views gained impetus in 1984 when a BBC documentary, ‘Maggie’s Militant Tendency’, drew links between two Conservative MPs and organisations on the far right. The MPs involved successfully sued the BBC in relation to these false accusations and both won substantial costs and damages.

Since the turn of the Century, persistent claims of pro-left coverage have been interspersed with accusations of ‘establishment’ coverage, and greater airtime for the Conservatives.  Back in 2012, a study from Cardiff University, found that appearances by the then Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron outnumbered those of then Leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, by a ratio of over three to one (53 to 15).

Recent accusations of left-wing bias

Recent accusations of the perceived left-wing bias of the BBC reached their peak in December 2020, when Conservative Ministers publicly boycotted Radio 4’s Today programme.

In August 2020, 14 Conservative MPs, wrote to the incoming Director General of the BBC, accusing the corporation of one-sided broadcasting, which “fundamentally failed” to convey the diverse views of the public.

Both David Cameron and Boris Johnson threatened to decriminalise the non-payment of BBC licence fees, and Conservative MPs have become increasingly hostile towards the broadcaster’s business structure. In July 2023, The Timesr eported that the BBC is facing a review into its funding model with alternatives to the licence fee like subscriptions or advertising being considered. The review is expected to be formally announced in autumn 2023.

Those on the right of the political spectrum often highlight the liberal career histories of BBC staff members. In 2014, the position of Newsnight’s new economics correspondent was offered to Duncan Weldon, whose previous positions included senior economist at the Trade Union Congress and advisor to the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Harriet Harman. This decision sparked complaints from the Tory MP Andrew Bridgen.

The BBC broadcaster Andrew Marr, has pointed to the diverse nature of the BBC, which he describes as employing, “an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people”, which is what he suggests fuels the BBC’s “innate liberal bias”.

The former BBC Business Editor, Jeff Randal, has described his experience of working at the BBC as something akin to attending a meeting of ‘the flat earth society’. In 2016, he said of his time working with people at the BBC that, “as they discuss great issues of the day, they discuss them from the point of view that the earth is flat”. Continuing he said, “If someone says, ‘No, no, no, the earth is round!’, they think this person is an extremist. That’s what it’s like for someone with my right-of-centre views working inside the BBC.”

In June 2023, the culture secretary Lucy Frazer said that the BBC is “biased on occasion” and “doesn’t always get it right” but Ms Frazer did say she was broadly in support of the content it produces.

The comments were made a few months after many on the right were troubled by the BBC sports presenter Gary Lineker’s criticism of the government’s asylum plans, accusing the home secretary of using language to describe refugees similar to that of the Nazis in 1930s Germany. In response, a group of 36 MPs and peers signed a letter to BBC Director General Tim Davie, demanding a full and independent investigation into Gary Lineker’s comments, with Conservative MP John Hayes saying the words would shake many people’s – already fragile – confidence in both the impartiality and professional standards of the BBC.”

Recent accusations of right-wing bias

However, many on the left accuse the BBC of showing the opposite bias, sometimes even on the same issues. After the BBC took Gary Lineker off air for his comments, many on the left accused the BBC of double standards, citing examples such as the fact Alan Sugar (who stars in the BBC’s The Apprentice) faced no repercussions after posting a clearly political tweet showing Jeremy Corbyn next to Hitler in 2018.

In response to the Gary Lineker saga, the Shadow Secretary for Culture, Lucy Powell said it “raised serious questions about the government’s role in upholding BBC impartiality” and that “the BBC capitulated to a Tory cancel campaign, orchestrated by Ministers and Conservative Members with their friends in the press”.

The BBC also has a long history of Conservative ties to the top jobs at the Corporation: former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14; former chairman of the right-of-centre magazine The Spectator, Andrew Neil, hosted two of its leading politics programmes; and the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association and had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Perhaps the most concerning tie between the BBC and the right was through the BBC’s former chairman, Richard Sharp. A cross-party committee of MPs found the BBC chair, who is responsible for maintaining the independence of the BBC, made “significant errors of judgement” by facilitating an £800,000 loan guarantee for Boris Johnson while he was Prime Minister. Mr Sharp is also a major Conservative party donor who was on the board of the conservative think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies. Ms Powell accused the government of “serious damage” to the reputation of the BBC by appointing Mr Sharp.

Ms Powell has also called conservative campaigns to change the BBC’s business model a “deliberate strategy of undermining the BBC in order to keep it over a barrel to get themselves more favourable coverage”.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

Similarly, a damning academic report found that the BBC violated its impartiality rules during its coverage of the 2017 general election for a variety of reasons, including its selection of titles, stories and guest discussants of newspaper coverage. It found that 69% of the newspaper stories featured on the BBC’s daily late-night TV show, The Papers, were from Conservative-supporting titles versus 23% from those supporting Labour.

In the run up to the 2019 General Election, the BBC political editor, Laura Kuenssberg was also accused of unfair coverage towards the then Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn. At Labour’s 2019 General Election manifesto launch, Kuenssberg was booed as she rose to ask a question.

Social media

With the rising influence of social media, the BBC has faced claims that its staff abuse the impartiality of their positions, by promoting personal agendas or political views on their social media accounts.

In 2020, the BBC Breakfast presenter Sally Nugent was criticised by some for using her Twitter account to promote the free school meals campaign involving Marcus Rashford, which at that time, was seen as representing an implicit critique of the government’s then-prevailing policy.

In April 2023, the BBC’s Twitter account was given the label of “government-funded media” but was swiftly changed after the BBC issued a complaint and asserted that the Corporation has always been independent. Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, later admitted that the BBC is ‘among the least biased’ media organisations.

Other accusations of BBC bias

In addition to accusations of BBC bias in relation to party politics, the 2016 EU Referendum also saw people make accusations of political bias against the BBC.

Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kussenberg exclaimed in an interview with Press Gazette, that the ‘world is on acid’. Following this, Brexit supporting newspapers such as the Daily Express, accused Kuenssberg of ‘Remainer’ Bias.

It has also been claimed that the BBC carried considerably more pro-EU voices, than it did of those who were euro-sceptic.

A 2018 report published by Civitas analysed BBC output between the autumn of 2017 and the summer of 2018. It revealed speaker ratios on the BBC, as high as 5:1, and never less than 2:1, in favour of the Remain campaign on EU membership.

Accusations of BBC bias also spreads beyond politics. In the 2010s, the BBC has been criticised for having an anti-Sikh and an anti-Hindu bias, and for the nature of its reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Quotes

“The Government is committed to ensuring the BBC is more impartial, more accessible and more reflective of our country’s variety of viewpoints” – Then Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, May 2022.

“News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument” – BBC Impartiality Guidelines: News, Current Affairs, and Factual Output

“Editors are making tough calls every minute of the day. But I don’t accept the view of those critics who jump on a handful of examples to suggest we’re somehow biased one way or the other.” – Tony Hall, director general of the BBC, 2020

“For too long, the right has got away with weaving a fairytale of BBC leftwing bias”. Owen Jones, writing in the Guardian, 2014.

“By far the most popular and widely read newspapers at the BBC are The Guardian and The Independent. […] In the later stages of my career, I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told ‘it’s all in there.” Jeff Randall, former Business editor at BBC, 2016.

Statistics

Just 54% of viewers now rate the corporation’s TV news offering as impartial, the lowest-ranking of any TV news offering in the country. [Source – Ofcom, 2020]

Complaints of any nature are addressed by Ofcom, which examines whether the issue is in breach of their Broadcasting Code. In its 2018 report, Ofcom assessed 69 complaints, before concluding that none required further investigation. However, in the 2022 report, assessed complaints had risen to 167, resulting in 3 programmes being referred for further investigation of which 1 breach was found.

The post BBC Bias appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

The BBC television licence fee was introduced in 1946, at a time when the Corporation was the only TV broadcaster in the United Kingdom.  At the time, a compulsory licence fee was considered a logical way for people to access the BBC’s services.

Today, with the broadcasting landscape now overrun with satellite channels, websites, and firms offering a streaming service, the situation is very different.

The Government is committed to retaining the licence fee for the remainder of the BBC’s current Royal charter period (until 31 December 2027).  The previous Culture Secrtetary, Nadie Dorries suggested that this licence fee settlement “will be the last” for the BBC.   If it was to win the next general election, the Labour Party remains committed  to maintaining the TV licence after 2027.

Should the TV Licence be scrapped?

Those opposed to the continued existence of a compulsory BBC licence fee, and who advocate an approach under the ‘defund the BBC’ umbrella tend to focus around the following core arguments:

1. The declining relevance of the BBC
Powered by the growth of internet enabled televisions and faster broadband, the last decade has seen a significant shift in people’s media consumption habits. There has been a notable change in what people are consuming, and from whom.

Online streaming services like Amazon Prime, Disney+, and NetFlix have rapidly gained market share.  Those aged between 16 and 24 now increasingly shun the BBC, instead watching a daily average of 73 minutes on YouTube.

The BBC now accounts for just 3 out of every 10 hours that people watch, with some suggesting this may drop to below 2 hours by the end of the decade. In the five months between November 2019 and March 2020, a further 82,000 people decided to opt out of watching television.

In a world overflowing with media options, those opposed to the TV licence fee, argue that it is fundamentally unjust to force all people to now pay for the BBC.

The situation is likened to the equivalent of someone who likes Mars chocolate bars, being legally forced to buy a Cadbury Cream Egg, before they can even consider buying a Mars bar. The requirement to buy a Cream Egg is mandatory, regardless of the level of interest that people have in the Cream Egg.

At its crux, it is maintained that the argument for making the BBC licence fee non compulsory is therefore one about individual choice. People should have the choice as to whether they want to watch the BBC, at what level, and thus whether to pay for it.

2. Not really a public service
Supporters of the BBC Licence Fee, argue that the BBC is a public service.

In the same way that people don’t have the ability to opt out of paying for healthcare or for the roads, simply because they aren’t using them at that point, nor should they be able to opt out from paying for the BBC.

However, those arguing for the defunding of the BBC, and the abolition of the TV licence, take particular issue with this characterisation of the BBC.

Given that the BBC already generates close to £1.5 billion of commercial revenue each year (circa 30% of its total revenue), the BBC is not a public service, but rather a significant  commercial entity, and an effective one at that.

Furthermore, people also take issue with how the £1.4 Billion output of BBC1 can be portrayed as a distinct public service.  It largely mirrors other commercial propositions.   The product contains the same blend of sports coverage, comedy, news, soap operas, and celebrity programmes, that viewer’s access from other major broadcasters such as ITV and Sky.

3. The BBC licence fee is a ‘Poll Tax’
Further criticisms of the current BBC licence fee focus on its nature as a highly regressive tax.

Unlike direct taxation, where levels vary depending on income, the TV licence fee is charged at a flat rate, regardless of a person’s means to pay or personal circumstances. This compulsory flat rate charge of £159 per year is said to place a disproportionately high burden on lower-income households.

The challenges faced by people in affording the BBC’s annual fee are evidenced by the 2016 figures which show that 184,595 people were charged with non payment of the TV licence in a single year. Many of those, end up with a criminal record, and then with additional court fines which place them under an even larger financial burdens.

Campaigners argue that such an approach is a disproportionate response for failing to pay for an entertainment proposition, and that it is simply wrong that up to 90 people per year are imprisoned for their failure to pay a TV bill.

4. The administrative costs of collecting the licence fee
The compulsory nature of the BBC licence fee means that a considerable infrastructure is needed to enforce the payment of £159 by most households.

In 2019/20 these collection costs totaled £119 million, and yet licence evasion had still risen from 5.2% in 2010/11 to 7.25% in 2019/20.

It is argued that none of the draconian policing mechanics would be necessary should be people just be allowed to subscribe to the BBCs output as they do with any other commercial product.  In that simple situation, people would only gain access to the BBC when they had paid the bill.

It is argued that the vast sums currently spent on collecting the licence fee, could otherwise be allocated to programme creation and other forms of public service broadcasting

5. Lack of Accountability
It is finally argued that the compulsory nature of the TV licence fee, with guaranteed incomes, means that the BBC is not properly accountable in terms of customer satisfaction for the quality of what it produces.

Critics of the BBC point to how the BBC’s market share has declined considerably in light of challenges from online and streaming platforms, whilst ITV has conversely managed to maintain its market share.

Unlike commercial radio for example, there is very little customer pressure requiring local BBC Radio Stations to boost the quality of their output or expand their listener base.

The case for not abolishing the BBC TV licence fee

Those who support the BBC’s current broad funding arrangements make a number of alternative points to justify the current regime:

1. Providing Editorial Independence
It is argued that compulsory taxation is a prerequisite for the BBC to maintain its editorial independence.  The BBC’s website describes how the licence fee allows the Corporation’s services, “to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest”.

Despite the regular accusations of bias that seem to be directed at the BBC from all sides of the political spectrum, it is claimed that news providers which are free of third-party intervention, are those best placed to deliver the impartial information which is the cornerstone of modern democracy.

All broadcasters in the UK are however mandated by OFCOM to remain political impartial as condition of their ongoing broadcast licence. This is a regulatory requirement, and would continue to be so, however the BBC was funded.

2. As a way of maintaining a national institution
Many supporters of the BBC licence fee present the BBC as a national institution, and one which is very different to other broadcasters.  The universally funded licence fee, and the large sums that the tax generates, is presented as integral to the Corporation being able to retain that standing.

Although ITV currently successfully runs its own regional news network, and many local newspapers now operate website video offerings, supporters of the BBC, regularly claim that the licence fee is necessary to protect the provision of local news.

3. An advert free product
A final justification of the BBC licence fee is that it provides people with access to a TV and radio network that is free of advertising.

In 2016, the BBC Director-General Lord Hall vowed that the BBC “will never run adverts” in the UK, as doing so would “harm the country’s broader broadcasting and news ecosystem”.

Historically, this advert free proposition was considered a particularly strong part of the BBC’s public appeal. However with subscription channels such as Sky and Amazon able to run advertising on top of their subscriptions, it appears that public antipathy to advertising may be easing.

The attraction of the BBC as an advert free platform has also diminished in the light of the rise of catch-up and on-demand services, with more and more viewers watching programmes after they have been first broadcast.

What are the alternative methods to fund the BBC

With Nadine Dorries claiming the govenrment still supports a future for the BBC, just not one funded by the BBC licence fee, this prompts the quesiton as to what viable alternative funding mechanism might exist for the corporation.  Here are some of those most commonly suggested:

1. 1. A Subscription Model
   A subscription funding model currently seems the most likely successor to the existing licence fee system. This proposal envisions the BBC operating along a similar model to that of the Co-Op or the National Trust, which are essentially owned by their members.

Under a Netflix-style subscription arrangement, consenting BBC viewers would pay a monthly or annual charge for continued use of BBC services.

A primary benefit of this approach is that viewers could choose from several payment grades with  varying levels of financial commitment, depending on what they wished to watch.

Online or mobile-only subscriptions, for instance, would likely be cheaper than subscriptions covering all features and add-ons.

2. A Broadcasting Levy
The concept of a broadcasting levy has also been advanced as a method to fund the BBC.

Under this scenario, a monthly levy would simply be placed on every household – whether they own a TV set or not. The charge could likely be added to an existing household bill, such as that for internet connection or electricity supply.

A broadcasting levy would though continue to constitute something of a regressive poll tax, meaning that poorer households would suffer disproportionately.  It would also still charge people who otherwise wouldn’t chose to pay to watch the BBC.

According to polls, advertising based funding for the BBC is the method most favoured by the public.

3. Advertising
A further alternative to the licence fee would see the BBC adopt the same advertising model as its mainstream competitors like ITV and Channel 4.

This approach has proven to be the most popular with the public. A YouGov survey from January 2020 found 37% of the wider public wanted the BBC to be funded through advertising, compared to 27% who preferred the licence fee, and 13% who backed a subscription model.

Despite advertising being the most popular option with the public, this approach has received the lowest support from the government, the BBC, and the wider broadcasting industry. It is believed that company’s like ITV oppose the notion of an advertising funded BBC, on grounds that it would increase the level of competition that they themselves would then face in the market.

4. Alternative Public Service Broadcasting Models
Under any proposed reform of the TV licence fee, it is likely that some government or public funding would be made available for public service broadcasting.  These funds would likely be ring fenced for particular types of programming, local news, and potentially some aspects of local radio.

By making the funds for public service broadcasting available across the whole media industry, rather than simply centralising them in one institution, it is argued that niche broadcasting needs may be better served.

For example, in 2019, a protest led by the language campaign group Cymdeithasyr Iaith Gymraeg (Welsh Language Society) saw around 80 Welsh residents refusing to pay the BBC TV licence on the grounds of a perceived underrepresentation of Welsh culture and language on BBC channels.

The operation of the current System

Who needs a TV licence?
A TV licence is a mandatory requirement for any household in the United Kingdom that watches or records programmes on a TV, computer, or a streaming device as they are being broadcasted (live TV).  It is also required to watch the BBC iPlayer.

One TV licence covers all TV sets, computers, laptops, tablets, mobile phones, or any device receiving a TV signal in that household.  A television licence is not required in order to just watch DVDs, or archived content on video sharing websites.

Those receiving Pension Credit, registered as blind, or who live in a residential care home, are entitled for a TV licence exemption. The previous provision of a free TV licence for those over 75 was scrapped in August 2020.

Hotels, hostels, campsites and mobile units, all likewise qualify for reduced fees. A single TV licence of £159 will cover 15 accommodation units on a single site. There is then an additional fee of the same amount, for every five extra units.

TV Licence Collection
In 2019/2020 it cost £119.5 million (circa 3.4% of the money raised) to collect the TV licence.

This figure covered the expenditure incurred across call centres, detection teams, over the counter services, postage and administration.

In addition to the information campaigns and postal reminders, officers employed by TV Licencing, visit homes where there is no registered TV licence. On visiting a home, an officer will inspect the main living area to assess whether or not any TV-receiving equipment is in use.

This officer may then complete a short interview, and ask for the occupant’s signature to confirm that the recorded notes are an accurate representation of the discussion.

Fee evasion and prosecution
Failure to possess a TV licence when required can result in a criminal sanction with penalty charges of up to £1,000.  Between 2010 and 2018, figures show that on average, 169,000 people per year, were convicted of TV licence evasion.

Future increases in the licence fee
In January 2022, Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries confirmed the licence fee would be frozen at this level for two years, in response to the cost of living crisis.  It would then increase by around 10% over the following four years.

Quotes

“You have to ask yourself whether that approach to funding a media company still makes sense in the long term given the way that other organisations manage to fund themselves.” …”The system of funding out of what is a general tax bears reflection. How long can you justify a system whereby everybody who has a TV has to pay to fund a particular set of TV and radio channels.” – Boris Johnson, 2019

“No other brand resonates around the world like the BBC. The BBC is a great national asset; a diminished BBC is a weakened United Kingdom.” – BBC Chairman, Sir David Clementi, commenting on prospective reforms to the TV licence and its likely impacts on the future of the BBC, 2020

“When you can stream a library of millions of shows on a laptop or tablet, it feels a bit backwards to sit down and subject yourself to a TV schedule which someone else has decided for you […] When people my age want to watch quality shows, we fire up Netflix, home to Narcos and Stranger Things, check out Amazon Prime’s catalogue of original series or flick on reality-TV service Hayu for a dose of the Kardashians. With these streaming sites, you’ve got a vast catalogue of high-quality original entertainment at the touch of a button, produced and uploaded faster than anyone could possibly watch it”, George Harrison, 21, The Sun, 2018

“The BBC funding model needs to be pulled into the 21st century. The UK has a long history of successful mutuals and co-operatives that are popular with their members. Such an ownership model for the BBC would be fit-for-purpose in the modern broadcasting world, detach the BBC from the state, and promote real diversity of corporate structures in the world of media. – Professor Phillip Booth, Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, 2019

The post BBC TV Licence Fee appeared first on Politics.co.uk.

This reduction in housing benefit, or the housing element of Universal Credit, has been differently referred to as ‘the bedroom tax’, the ‘under-occupation tax’, or ‘the removal of the spare room subsidy’.

Under the regulations, a social housing tenant whose property is considered over-occupied lose 14% of their eligible rent for 1 room and 25% for two or more rooms.

As such, if soemone’s rent is £400 a month, their benefit would be cut by £56 a month for one extra bedroom, or £100 for two extra bedrooms.

Tenants are expected to make up this deduction or relocate to a smaller accommodation. While sub-letting is illegal for social tenancies, a tenant subject to the tax may take in lodgers.

The UK’s leading Housing charities have continuously attacked the bedroom tax.

How does the bedroom tax work?

The new legislation set out to scale benefits to the number of tenants living in a rented property, and the relative size of this property.

Claimants would only receive benefit for the number of rooms they are entitled to: spare bedrooms would not be covered by their eligible rent.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decides what constitutes an ‘extra room’.  Shared bedrooms are expected for any two children of either sex under 10, one bedroom for any two children of the same sex under 16, and one bedroom per couple. If a room becomes unoccupied following a death, the reduced benefit will only come into effect after 52 weeks.

Ahead of its implementation, opponents of the bedroom tax contended that certain groups would suffer the effects of the tax most severely. These included children living with disabilities who required an extra room, and parents who had an adult child that is away for limited periods of time.

In March 2013 the Government subsequently announced exemptions for children with a severe disability and parents whose children were studying at university, or had been deployed on missions whilst acting for the armed forces.

If someone is an approved foster carer, there is provision for one extra bedroom for a foster child. This provision continues providing it has not been over a year since the previous placement.

The bedroom tax only applies to those of working age. Those who have reached the pension age are not liable for the bedroom tax.

The housing benefit or universal credit calculation of those living with a disabled child allows them a separate bedroom, providing the child is receiving the Disability Care Component at the middle or highest rate, and that the housing benefit office accepts that their disability prevents them from sharing a bedroom.

Who introduced the bedroom tax?

Under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government introduced a series of changes to UK Housing Benefits.

Implemented in April 2013, the new regulations meant that working-age tenants living in social housing risked seeing their housing benefit cut if they were classified as having an extra bedroom. The reform applies to all working age occupants renting from a local authority, a registered housing association or a registered social landlord.

Arguments made for the bedroom tax

The driving force behind the introduction of the ‘bedroom tax’ was the rising housing benefit bill which, in 2013, stood at £23 billion.

Supporters of the bedroom tax, take issue with the definition of the measure as a tax, and refer to it as the ‘spare bedroom subsidy’.

This definition follows the argument most frequently made for the bedroom tax, that prior to its introduction, taxpayers were subsidising social housing tenanst to live in accommodation far larger than was considered necessary. This involved funding the provision of a separate bedroom which was unoccupied.

The reform intended to address this imbalance and to allow a better correlation between the number of occupants and the number of rooms in a house. As stated by Boris Johnson when Mayor of London in 2013, the objective was to achieve a “more equitable distribution of what is a public good, which is subsidised accommodation”.

Through his time in office, Prime Minister David Cameron reiterated that the proposals were an alteration to a benefit, and not an increased tax.

Opposition to the bedroom tax

Critics view the bedroom tax as placing additional financial strains on the most vulnerable members of society. Opponents point out that the burden of the tax falls the hardest on those in the lowest socio-economic brackets. It is argued that those with sufficient salaries are better able to cope with the increased housing costs and remain in their accommodation.

It was argued that those with the lowest and most precarious incomes, wouldn’t be able to afford the new found reduction in their housing benefit. Forced to downsize, this gave rise to further concern over a lack of smaller properties available from a local housing association or local council, and the prospect of increased homelessness.

Opponents of the bedroom tax have repeatedly argued that the policy has not had the stated effect of rebalancing the housing stock with people moved to smaller properties.  Instead it has just represented a further burden on those struggling with housing benefit.

In 2014, the Department for Work and Pensions published a report stating that only one in twenty claimants affected by the tax had successfully downsized their property. A further study conducted in 2016 showed that 6% of those affected had successfully moved.

Official study: Bedroom tax driving people into hunger and debt

Challenges to the bedroom tax

Following its introduction, the bedroom tax has faced a number of legal challenges.  These challenges have revolved around situations involving an adult couple who were unable to share a bedroom for medical reasons; and non-dependent adults requiring overnight care, in particular where claimants have either been living with a disability, or living with a disabled person (the issue of the overnight non resident carer).

In 2015, the Supreme Court found two of these cases in favour of the claimant, ruling that the housing benefit change placed unjust distinctions on adults and children. In response to these cases, regulations were changed to exempt vulnerable adults in April 2017.

In November 2019, The Supreme Court ruled that an individual’s housing benefit should not be reduced if this resulted in a violation of their human rights. The judgement, delivered by Lady Hale, reaffirmed the Human Rights Act as taking legal presence over secondary legislation such as the bedroom tax.

Victory for bedroom tax couple as DWP defeated in court again

Government defeated at the Supreme Court over bedroom tax

Statistics

When the bedroom tax came into force in April 2013, a predicted 660,000 housing benefit claimants were affected. This was approximately 31% of all working-age Housing Benefit claimants living in social housing. [Source – DWP, 2012]

According to figures from the Department of Work and Pensions, as of May 2019, 13% of working-age housing benefit recipients had experienced a reduction to their weekly payment on account of the Under Occupancy Penalty.

A 2013 poll conducted by Ipsos Mori found that more of the public supported than opposed the reduction of housing benefit for under-occupying social housing tenants. However, 41% thought that reducing housing benefit in this way will not lead to a more efficient use of social housing.

Bedroom tax support falls apart as Lib Dem president breaks ranks

The post Bedroom tax appeared first on Politics.co.uk.