David Lammy is right about discipline There has been quite a bit of press reporting about David Lammy's comments about the operation of the care system acting to undermine discipline.

Clearly this is not the only reason that the looting occurred, but I know of a number of cases where the care system has undermined parental discipline to the clear and obvious detriment to the children. Hence I agree with him about the principle.  posted by john ¶ 12:24 PM 1 comments

  Australian Government Peak Oil Report The link is to a copy of a report produced by the Australian Government in 2009 which was then as far as I can tell sat on and removed from the list of reports.

The summary includes the following:
The trends in discovery of oil can be used to project similar trends in the subsequent
production of oil. Using a method developed here, forecasts of future oil/liquids
production for 40 countries/regions around the world have been produced.
The oil production prospects of different countries and regions vary immensely.
However, on balance, when an aggregation is done across the globe, it is predicted
that world production of conventional oil is currently just past its highest point
(conventional oil is oil pumped from wells on land or in water less than 500 metres
deep). A predicted shallow decline in the short run should give way to a steeper
decline after 2016.
However, deep water and non-conventional oil production are growing strongly,
turning a slight decline into a plateau for total crude oil (non-conventional oil is heavy
and viscose or indeed tar-like oil). Given the growth in deep and non-conventional
balancing the shallow decline in conventional production, it is predicted that we
have entered about 2006 onto a slightly upward slanting plateau in potential oil
production that will last only to about 2016—eight years from now (2008). For the
next eight years it is likely that world crude oil production will plateau in the face
of continuing economic growth. After that, the modelling is forecasting what can
be termed ‘the 2017 drop-off’. The outlook under a base case scenario is for a long
decline in oil production to begin in 2017, which will stretch to the end of the century
and beyond. Projected increases in deep water and non-conventional oil, which are
‘rate-constrained’ in ways that conventional oil is not, will not change this pattern.
Importantly, these forecasts assume that world oil production is not constrained in the
near term by reduced demand arising from lower world economic growth. Depending
on the length of time before a return to more normal levels of world economic growth
and resulting higher demand for oil, the dropoff is likely to be delayed.  posted by john ¶ 10:23 AM 1 comments

  Court of protection story in The Telegraph The link is to a story where a local council attempted to stop an elderly lady with dementia from going on a cruise. In this instance the CoP found for the human beings. My experience is that it normally finds for the state however bad the arguments for the state happen to be.  posted by john ¶ 8:51 AM 1 comments

  Court of Appeal 'redefine' Liberty The Court of Appeal Judgement in Cheshire West and Chester v P appears to redefine the concept of deprivation of liberty to exclude disabled people, in effect depriving anyone locked up by social services on the basis of an *alleged* disability of safeguards and appeal rights.

This judgment has been criticised in this excellent article by Sam Smith - along with many others including Community Care magazine , 39 Essex Street Chambers and the Mental Health Alliance .

I have argued for the reform of the Court of Protection for some time - and this judgement only underscores the serious problems with the system.

The Mental Health Alliance will be proposing options for reform in a forthcoming report and it is to be hoped the Department of Health listens. This is one of the most pressing issues facing this country today. Extract from the report here.  posted by john ¶ 12:48 PM 6 comments

  (partially) Secret Committal Hearing in Northampton The link is to a story from Northampton where a mother was given a 28 days suspended sentence for putting information about her case on Facebook.

RSC Schedule 1 Order 52 states:
(2)If the court hearing an application in private by virtue of paragraph (1) decides to make an order of committal against the person sought to be committed, it shall in public state –

(a)the name of that person;

(b)in general terms the nature of the contempt of court in respect of which the order of committal is being made; and

(c)the length of the period for which he is being committed.

I don't have any information about the case apart from what is in the Northampton Chronicle. Clearly the existence of the hearing is not secret, but the identity of the mother is.

My own reading of Order 52 is that suspended committal orders are not distinguished from other committal orders.

It remains that contempt of court applications are of a criminal nature and for the protection of the rule of law they should involve open justice. It is particularly oppressive when people are prevented from speaking out about the situation as happens when reporting restrictions are applied.

The judge is also quoted as saying:
“I have broad shoulders and can accept that the difficult decision I had to make could cause great unhappiness to one or more of the parties. But it is not right the judge should be criticised in this way. If criticisms are justified then they should be made in the form of an appeal to a higher court.”

I personally am unsure as to
a) What criticism was made
b) What criticism in itself should have any impact on an order for committal whether suspended or not.

It remains, however, that although there are grounds for appeal of the courts decision (see Schedule 1 above) it is unlikely that there will be an appeal given the practical difficulty of making appeals.  posted by john ¶ 7:41 AM 0 comments

  Failed Adoptions create more homeless youths (in the USA) The link is to a story (29/12/2011) in the New York Times about failed adoptions leading to homelessness.

The USA started the obsession with adoption as a "solution" to care. They have about 50,000 "adoptions" from care each year. They don't actually track the total adoptions figure as the most recent total figure is from 2001 and is around 127,000.

There is a very important distinction between adoption from care in the USA and England. In the USA there is often an adoption fee paid by the state which results in more children being "adopted". The question, of course, is what happens when the money stops.

That is also why there are more older adoptions in the USA.

In the UK the starting problem is that the care system often makes really silly decisions. We had the story in The Times about adoptees voting with their feet in their teens. It is important to note that this applies to children adopted in the 1990s. Our big push for adoption was from 2000 onwards hence one would expect this to become a bigger problem over this decade.

If you take a simple comparison of population of the USA at 300M and England at 50M then the English rate of adoptions at just over 3,000 (3040 to the nearest 10) would give 18,000 adoptions in the USA (from care). If you take the figure of permanence at just under 6,000 that compares to 36,000. However, the USA figure also really includes foster care. That is why their figure is so high. (And why you get stories like the NY times story linked to).

I don't know enough about the USA system to comment much more. I know a lot of children die violent deaths in the USA. However, I don't know to what extent they are teenagers dying in gang warfare or children dying at the hands of their carers. It remains that the Gilbert conclusion in the Lancet (also December 2011) is that the approach in both countries to child protection is not actually reducing the amount of child maltreatment.

That particular aspect is a much more complex issue.  posted by john ¶ 4:47 PM 0 comments

  Times Story about Adoption Reversals The link is to today's story in The Times about adoptions reversing as children get older. There has already been some of this, but with the more aggressive approach to adoption there are many more wrongful adoptions.

The story is behind a paywall. I will extract a few quotes
The two leading adoption charities are deeply concerned about the big increase in online unplanned contact, which flouts guidelines on contacting adopted children and risks seriously disrupting the lives of already troubled young people.

The problem affects children who were taken into care for safeguarding in the 1990s. In the worst cases, children traced by their birth parents suffer a complete breakdown in the relationship with their adoptive family, the charities warn.

Research by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering found that 53 per cent of adopted children have used unofficial means, including Facebook, to trace birth parents. A quarter said that the outcome had been unsettling.

Where I am critical of the article is that it makes no reference to the fact that at times social workers exaggerate the problems in families in order to obtain care orders.

In the end it is likely to be the adopted children that will bring about the pressure for the policy we currently have to change unless it is changed first by parliament.
I made this point a number of years ago and as the cohorts forced through the system since 2000 start becoming of sufficient age to speak out then there will be a greater demand for change (and probably the same apology as was given to the home children).  posted by john ¶ 3:14 PM 2 comments

  Irish Supreme Court judgment on Hague Convention and adoption in England. The link is to the judgment of the Irish Supreme Court on matters relating to the Hague Convention and adoption.

A number of parents have won legal cases in Ireland which prevented their children being returned to England and placed in care on the basis that this would lead to adoption.

This case was an interesting one because the children were not actually in care or even subject to a care order, but that care proceedings were "pending". (Viz an application had been made to court.)

The first test in international public family law is one as to which country has jurisdiction. This is based on "habitual residence". It is now clearly the case that if court proceedings have started in England then the habitual residence is accepted as being in England even if the family have moved to Ireland.

The case has also looked at the question as to whether non-Irish citizens have Irish Constitutional Rights, but without resolving the issue in any way.

The judgment is a long and interesting one that is worth reading for anyone interested in this issue. Where it is wrong is that it sees the Irish and English law as being on the same spectrum. I believe in the long term that it will be recognised both that this is not the case and also that the trend in law has been damaging for children. The trend in law actually has been resisted for millennia and exists in the bible (Job 24:9). There is today as there has been in the past a demand for children from adoptive parents. There is a tendency for the system to respond to that demand by providing children from economically or politically weaker families.

If this all happens in secret then it tends to succeed without challenge, but if it is subject to proper public scrutiny then it is resisted.

What is clear about judicial systems and secrecy is that secrecy undermines the rule of law. At time it may be arguable that the secrecy is more important than the rule of law. However, if that is not the case then secrecy is to be avoided.

My advice to parents facing care proceedings is to follow the law. The law does not prevent people from emigrating when there are no proceedings. People considering emigrating to Ireland need to consider the financial issues. Since the financial crisis obtaining benefits in Ireland has been very difficult. Hence it is only those people with adequate resources that can do this.  posted by john ¶ 9:55 AM 11 comments

  Florence wins Radio Prize See the link for the website dealing with Florence Bellone's winning of the reporting prize for reporting on the English Family Courts scandal.

Quoting from the website:
Title of the article
Great Britain: The Stolen Children
Name of media
RTBF
The Grand Jury distinguished the report for its investigative merit in highlighting a human rights issue occurring in a highly-developed European Member State. The piece was characterised as ‘a technically impressive, investigative report into shocking and relatively unknown human rights violations’.  posted by john ¶ 4:23 PM 1 comments

  St Edburgha's Carol Service I attended St Edburgha'a carol service last Sunday. Robert Jones has produced some good photographs of the event. The music was good, but I don't think it is available on the net.  posted by john ¶ 8:31 PM 3 comments

  Vicky Haigh - imprisoned for 3 years for saying hello The link is to a story behind the paywall of the Sunday Times relating to Friday's jailing at around 4pm of Vicky Haigh for 3 years.

On the way to the meeting in London (at which she asked a question of Anthony Douglas which was one of the reasons for which Doncaster MDC tried to have her imprisoned) she saw her daughter and went to say hello.

At a time at which the press would not ordinarily be there on Friday she was given 3 years.

Doesn't seem right to me.

It remains that she has not yet managed to appeal the original family court decisions mainly because the solicitors are holding onto the file.

It is also the case that the promised publication of various documents by the authories promised earlier this year has not happened.

I suppose keeping her in jail will make it even harder for her to challenge the original decision.  posted by john ¶ 12:11 PM 19 comments

  Films of Birmingham in the past There is a youtube channel Idowish12 which includes a lot of films of Birmingham's past.

For example:


and

  posted by john ¶ 9:17 AM 0 comments

  CTB and Imogen Thomas The CTB v Imogen Thomas case raises a number of constitutional concerns about the accountability and reliability of secret justice. On 20th May 2011 the Neuberger Committee reported on secret justice clarifying what should happen. These procedures were not followed (in this case) on a number of occasions. On 2nd November 2011 there was a hearing which was not even listed. On 11th November 2011 the press were excluded without explanation. On 25th November 2011 there was a hearing with a decision for which no judgment was given until yesterday. The court should have clearly discharged the original injunction some months ago.

The key issue, however, is that Secret Justice leads to miscarriages of justice. Secret Justice often means No Justice. In this case it is still unclear whether Imogen Thomas would have been able to prove her case had CTB not been named in parliament. What is clear is that the original injunction would have prevented Imogen Thomas’s lawyers from doing necessary research to find evidence. The law prevents me from saying exactly why.

This is the third privacy case which has been recently shown to start with a miscarriage of justice. I am also concerned that many family cases are known to be based upon unreliable evidence. There needs to be a constitutional review on bringing in accountability and controls on court secrecy. What is clear is that the court itself has a conflict of interest in deciding what is and what is not to be made public.

Judgments:
16th May
23rd May
23rd May 2nd
25th November
The statement from yesterday is not available on bailii.  posted by john ¶ 3:33 PM 2 comments

  Today's Education Select Committee This link will give a video of the evidence session at Today's Education Select Committee (Martin Narey and myself).  posted by john ¶ 3:00 PM 1 comments

  Hollande commits to renegotiate new european treaty I noticed in Le Monde over breakfast this morning that the Socialist candidate for France's presidential elections has said he will renegotiate the treaty.

I have found the story in the online version of the newspaper and that is the link.

When I told the Minister for Europe of this I was informed that it was on Radio 4 this morning.  posted by john ¶ 8:29 AM 0 comments

  Updated express story The express story has been updated to include more than was in the printed story.

It now includes the following comments from the British Association of Social Workers:
Nishra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, recognised the whistleblower’s comments and said: “It’s a major concern. The cuts are creating so much pressure for social workers that the right decisions are not being taken.

“We’re storing up so many problems, but the odds are against us.”  posted by john ¶ 12:16 PM 5 comments

  Foreign children and childrens services The link is to a story in Today's Sunday Telegraph about the many foreign children trapped in Childrens Services' kafkaesque world.  posted by john ¶ 9:05 AM 0 comments

  Whistleblower reveals truth about Childrens Service management The link is to a story in today's Sunday Express about how misleading reports and psychobabble are used to destroy families.

This is an extract:

The whistleblower, a father who works for a large authority in the south of England, said: “We’re being pressured to go against what we think is right for families.
“Personally, I’ve written reports and been told ‘You are too positive with this family. We’ll never get it to court unless you make it more negative’.
“Although it goes against what you feel is right, you feel under an obligation.”
He went on: “In order to get a child through to a child protection conference, we’re told to make the situation look bad, and worse than it actually is.
“We don’t necessarily make things up but we can change the emphasis.”

He said these reports were used to take children out of a family home and in many cases placed for adoption. “It destroys families, but the newer, younger social workers see this as the norm, they just want to toe the line with their bosses and that’s worrying.”
He also raised serious concerns about council-appointed psychologists biased in favour of their paymasters and what he considered nebulous concepts of emotional abuse and “attachment theories”.  posted by john ¶ 8:51 AM 0 comments

  Europe and the Media - Cameron's Veto A number of journalists have phoned me to ask my view as to the use of the veto. I think Cameron was right to use the veto on changes to the treaties. It is entirely right that the 17 Eurozone countries resolve how to get greater fiscal unity which is essential for the success of the Euro and consequential success of the UK. However, that does not mean that we have to sign up to that. We should not try to stand in their way and prevent them resolving their difficulties. However, it is not surprising that unanimity amongst the 27 EU states is difficult to achieve.

When I tell the media this strangely enough they are not interested in interviewing me. The story they are looking for is "coalition in trouble over veto". I am not surprised at the editorial approach, however.

The party is saying that he did not use a "veto". I suppose a "veto" is technically different to not agreeing something that needs unanimity. However, the effect is the same.  posted by john ¶ 11:27 AM 2 comments

  Skiing Holidays and PMQs I wondered if Hansard had corrected what I thought was Ed Milliband's error at PMQs when he said:
the dinner lady, the cleaner or the nurse, people who earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday

Indeed they have stuck with what he said. Perhaps it wasn't a mistake and he thinks that cleaners earn £11K per week.  posted by john ¶ 9:09 PM 3 comments

  A difficult hand played well The Autumn Statement was today. There are some innovative proposals in it (such as using QE for smaller businesses). I was concerned that we continued to protect the poorest in society. The cost of living has gone up substantially. I was concerned to ensure that the full inflation increase of 5.2% occurred for the poorest who find it hardest to make ends meet.

Life is getting harder for many people across the world. However, we need to always remember the effect on the least well off who find it hardest to protect themselves against economic shifts.

To that extent the government has been dealt a difficult hand, but is managing to play to well.

The best test of the economy is to compare it to other similar countries. We are now doing better than countries which suffered from a similar deficit (according to OECD predictions - Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain) and the Eurozone average.

There will always be international pressures on the country. Those are the major cause of our current difficulties. However, we are pulling through.  posted by john ¶ 1:03 PM 1 comments

  Another radio programme in Belgium This is another radio programme which looks at the wrongful abduction of children in England done by the state.

It is, however, mainly in French. (including one of my interviews talking about constitutional procedures). It does include a recording of an arrest with french translation.  posted by john ¶ 5:25 PM 1 comments

  Referendum campaign on issue of elected mayor Last night's meeting on the issue of whether or not we have a directly elected mayor was an interesting experience.

In the week beforehand I had expressed concern that there were too many speakers and it was unbalanced. I thought that having equal numbers of speakers from each side of the argument was good practice.

The initial proposal was 7 speakers in favour (plus the chair also being a supporter) and 2 speakers against. I asked James Hutchings to come along, but initially the organisers didn't want him to speak.

Finally they agreed to allow him to speak although Miles Weaver's tweet about it was " I spent far too much time sorting out John Hemming MP tonight & his whims. He is so out of touch, I accommodated his needs but planet, diff?"

Personally I don't think it is a "whim" to ask for each side to have equal opportunities to speak. A balance of 7 (plus chair) against 2 is really nothing even close to equal. Even 7 (plus chair) against 3 is not a balanced panel.

To be fair to Marc Reeves who chaired the meeting, his personal views did not show and he did manage to balance out both sides of the argument.

Congratulations really should also go to Neil Elkes for the first two paragraphs of his article here in which he admirably sums up the argument:
AN ELECTED mayor could lead the city towards a golden era of growth, confidence and success.

Or the city could be lumbered with a corrupt power-freak and unable to ditch him for four years.

Someone from the yes campaign obviously thinks it is clever to set up a spoof No to a Brum Mayor twitter account.

It doesn't really matter in the bigger realm. However, really we should encourage more questions like that of Nick Drew who asked a key question as to what checks and balances are needed on a power freak. That was a good technical question. To which the answer is that a majority of the council should support the budget and the council scrutiny process should be able to stop things from being done by the mayor.  posted by john ¶ 1:36 PM 0 comments

  Two E-petitions Jersey and the Family Justice Review People campaigning for the release of Stuart Syvret were having a problem getting an e-petition tabled in support of my Early Day Motion. I, therefore, tried to get a motion tabled. It has taken about 2 weeks (and being raised at two select committees), but we now have the e-petition.

That is here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22394

There is also one in support of my EDM calling for the scrapping of the family justice review report here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22695  posted by john ¶ 7:52 AM 1 comments

  The failure of Article 8 The failure of the UK's judiciary in interpreting Article 8 of ECHR can be expressed as:
"Joking about a footballer becomes a criminal offence, but the state is allowed to steal children from poor people at a whim."

Not good.  posted by john ¶ 8:19 PM 1 comments

  European Parliament and Family Court Corruption The link is to three interviews with MEPs about the possibility of the European Parliament acting to review the malpractise in the English and Welsh family courts.

(in French).  posted by john ¶ 6:00 PM 1 comments

  Secrecy, injunctions and the rule of law Court secrecy and injunctions act to undermine the rule of law.

What is interesting in the courts at the moment is the revelation that many of the injunctions that were granted should not, in fact, been granted. A number of these were granted on the basis of allegations that were untrue and have not been substantiated.

One of the problems with secret hearings (and we have still been having some unlisted hearings - something that is not supposed to happen) is that the judge cannot him or herself have confidence that the judge has heard all the evidence that is relevant to the case.

One sided hearings (ex parte hearings) which are held in secret are perhaps the most unreliable forum in which decisions are made. One side puts their case. No-one else (other than the judge and the one side to the case) knows that it is happening. The judge then makes a decision.

It was the case for many interim injunctions that a one sided secret hearing was all that happened and things then stopped.

The other problem I see is when court orders are used to prevent evidence being adduced in other fora.

Hence in a simplistic manner the following of a court order in one case acts to undermine the rule of law in other cases.

I have been quite surprised at the number of processes that have been used to undermine the rule of law. Court orders, secret unlisted and ex parte hearings, contracts, Public Interest Immunity certificates. All of these have been used in a way which has undermined the rule of law.

The rule of law does not mean a Kritarchy. The system has to function in a realistic manner with proper accountability. What that means for the UK is a lot less secrecy.  posted by john ¶ 12:03 PM 12 comments

  Fuel Prices The link is to yesterday's debate on fuel prices. I raised my concern that we need to look at the issue of all energy prices in a scarce environment.

I think the idea of having a quota of cheap fossil hydrocarbon would be a sensible way forward as part of an international plan to manage demand and keep down capital transfers.  posted by john ¶ 4:57 PM 0 comments

  The Greek non-referendum The cancellation of the Greek referendum is not surprising. It is, however, a good example of an issue where a government really has no choice.

The problem is that if the alternative route had been taken then at a point people would not have been paid and the problem would be much bigger. Many people would then regret having taken the action that they took (or moreso inaction).

This is the real problem with Labour's proposals for the UK. It is clear to me that they would be disastrous for the economy and would cause greater cuts. However, luckily, they are not being tried out.  posted by john ¶ 9:49 AM 3 comments

  Family Justice Review Unsurprisingly, for a panel dominated by people who run the family justice system and without representation from those who go through it, the Family Justice Review has essentially defended the status quo with a few cost saving tweaks.  posted by john ¶ 7:39 AM 4 comments

  Cash is King - and Greece The Greek referendum will be an interesting exercise. At some point the Greek government runs out of cash. After that point no-one gets paid. I suppose they can start by holding back on big payments, but after a point salaries are not paid, pensions are not paid, suppliers are not paid.

Cash becomes "king" because no-one will give the government any credit unless they are forced to.

The government could print a "new drachma", but I am not sure what that would be exchangeable into.

They cannot simply refuse to pay the outstanding debt because the other countries would not accept that and they cannot isolate themselves.

If they are going to hold a referendum they will need to do this quickly.  posted by john ¶ 9:25 AM 2 comments

  Press release on trauma centres This is worth repeating for information:


High quality emergency trauma care moves one step closer
The introduction of a regional trauma care system that will see people who suffer major trauma injuries get access to the best possible emergency trauma care moved one step closer today, following the decision to approve the introduction of three designated major trauma centres for the West Midlands, by the West Midlands Strategic Commissioning Group (WMSCG).

The WMSCG, on behalf of the 17 West Midlands Primary Care Trusts, approved the recommendation for a new regional trauma care system to be introduced from March 2012, at its board meeting on Monday 31/10/11.

A regional trauma care system will see people who suffer major trauma get access to specialist medical teams, with all the necessary specialist services available on one hospital site. Patients will have access to high quality emergency trauma care 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Major trauma is the name given to severe injuries which are immediately life threatening such as major head or spinal injuries, amputations, multiple injuries and severe knife or gunshot wounds.

The new regional trauma care system will consist of three trauma care networks with a major trauma centre at the heart of each network. The major trauma centres will be supported by trauma units, specialist rehabilitation hospitals and local emergency hospitals.
Three trauma care networks are to be set up in the West Midlands. Each network will have an adult major trauma centre at its heart plus the Birmingham Children’s Hospital will be the regional major trauma centre for children. The hospitals that will become adult major trauma centres are:
• The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham
• The University Hospital North Staffordshire
• The University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire
Children will be treated at their local major trauma centre, for example if a child is involved in a road traffic accident in Stoke, they would go to University Hospital North Staffordshire and would only need to go to Birmingham Children’s Hospital if they required specialist children’s consultant’s expertise for example a child who had suffered extensive burns or a serious head injury. They would then be transferred using the West Midlands Paediatric Retrieval Service (WMPRS) and would be escorted by a doctor and/or nurse.
Eamonn Kelly, Chief Executive of the West Mercia PCT Cluster and Co Chair of the Trauma Project Board said: “Evidence tells us that to give patients with life threatening injuries the best possible chance of survival they need access to specialist life saving emergency services that are all available on the same hospital site, giving patients faster access to their specialist skills for example neurosurgeons and CT scanners to treat serious head injuries. Specialist rehabilitation services are also extremely important as they help the patient to recover much quicker and reduce disability.”
Mr Kelly continued: “Currently we do not have 24 hours a day 7 days a week specialist emergency trauma services across the West Midlands. We know that having a major trauma system could save an additional 60 lives every year in our region. The decision to introduce a three trauma care network system means that we can now start to set up the networks, with a go live date scheduled for March 2012. This will see the hospitals, ambulance service, specialist rehabilitation services and other NHS staff from across the region working towards further improving the quality of care that they provide for trauma patients.”

The decision to introduce three trauma care networks across the region was made following the review of the business case and integrated impact assessment which looked at the four options possible for the region. These documents helped the NHS in the West Midlands to reach their final decision which supports the main aim of ensuring that patients who suffer major trauma injuries receive the best specialist emergency trauma care possible in the right place at the right time, from highly qualified emergency trauma care experts.

Eamonn Kelly finished by saying: “We know that a lot of good work is already taking place but this will give us the opportunity to make best use of the specialist staff and facilities that we already have in the three large tertiary centres across the region and build on that knowledge and expertise to provide the best care possible for those patients who need specialist emergency trauma care.”

During the next eight weeks the NHS in the West Midlands will be talking to their local communities and people who have a special interest in trauma care to find out their views on the services available and how the preferred option will make a difference before the implementation of the system from January 2012 onwards.

If you would like to find out more contact your local primary care trust or visit www.wmsc.nhs.uk or email info@wmsc.nhs.uk  posted by john ¶ 9:23 AM 1 comments

  The Robin Hood Tax (aka Stamp Duty) Using the name "Robin Hood Tax" is misleading because it implies that it is a new tax.

The UK has had a Financial Transaction Tax for many years. It is called Stamp Duty. The logic is quite simple. For transactions in shares to have any merit then there has to be a legal system. People should pay on an ad valorem basis for this.

This happens in England and in Ireland. England charges 0.5% and Ireland 1%.

My view is a simple one which is that the tax havens piggyback on top of the global systems which are substantially maintained by the higher tax countries. It is, therefore, quite reasonable that such a transactional tax should be paid more widely.

Hence I am supporting the extension of this to a global system. I have, however, been quite clear that it cannot be done unilaterally. This would simply move trading around to locations without the transaction tax and actually would be likely to reduce the UK's Stamp Duty revenue.

The Tobin tax is a proposal to also tax currency exchanges. It is a relatively low value tax. The argument is more finely balanced for countries with smaller currencies as they would tend to lose out. However, it could be a good mechanism for raising some funds. It would, however, reduce the number of transactions and hence the funds raised would not be as great as has been thought.  posted by john ¶ 8:46 AM 0 comments

  The European Union and Project Creep There was a good example of Project Creep at one of the European Scrutiny Committees this week.

There is a proposal for the EU to develop its own criminal law and prosecutory apparatus.

This, which we can opt out of anyway, is a good example of project creep.

Matters relating to the various European Bodies are matters of detail. There is, however, a general point. The general point is that of who decides at which level something should be handled. Everyone can agree that subsidiarity means that decisions should be taken at the lowest sensible level. The problem is that if that decision (the decision as to which level to decide something at) is taken at the EU wide level it will tend to want decisions at a higher level.

The prosecutory apparatus issue is a good example of this. There is no substantial reason for developing a formal body of criminal law or prosecutory apparatus at a Europe wide level. There happens to be a common law backstop of a private prosecution in any event.

I also sat on a scrutiny committee previously looking at the EU budget. What was interesting under the CAP is that almost no money was budgeted for tobacco subsidies, but lots of money was given in each year (out turn) in tobacco subsidies.

This is a typical political fudge.

On a completely separate European issue relating to the Council of Europe I did manage to promote the concept of certain resolutions of the Council of Europe guiding the court's interpretation. I think this is the better option. The European Court of Human Rights provides an important backstop against miscarriages in national courts. However, this should still be democratically accountable in some manner otherwise it becomes a Kritarchy.  posted by john ¶ 8:33 AM 0 comments

  Comment following Sentencing Obviously no-one would wish to be here. It would have been possible for Christine to have had a prison sentence following the assault in April 2010 (for which she received a caution). Hence a suspended sentence is not surprising.

Had she pleaded Guilty she would have most likely had a conditional discharge. Hence we have to look at the issues that encouraged her to plead not guilty. One aspect is that her story was bought up by a national newspaper in 2010. In theory the PCC rules are such that given that she has been convicted she should not be paid. She was aware of this. It would, in fact, be wrong for her to make a profit out of the process by being paid more by a newspaper than she has to pay in costs and legal fees.

Clearly the financial inducement to be found not guilty was there. I am not saying that this was intentional. It can not be certain that this was the issue that drove her to plead not guilty. However, I do not think defendants in criminal trials should have their stories bought until after the verdict.  posted by john ¶ 10:24 AM 4 comments

  Magna Carta 1297 - Article 29 The link is to the currently in force version of Magna Carta article 29 which says:
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor [X1condemn him,] but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

We should not "sell ... justice"

This is relevant to the Clarkson injunction.  posted by john ¶ 10:49 AM 2 comments

  Paul Tyler on 38 degrees The link is to Paul Tyler's article about 38 degrees. Those campaigns run by 38 degrees are now in the danger of being simply ignored because their claims are so often untrue.  posted by john ¶ 7:31 AM 0 comments

  Referendum on Europe I have posted before about the European Questions. It is sad that the public debate never really gets into any of the details of this issue. There will be a debate on Monday which has a motion proposing a referendum which has as one of it's options a renegotiation.

I would like to make my underlying view clear.

I do not support an "ever closer union". I do see that there is a role for a pan-european organisation dealing with trade and co-operation, but I do not want to see the centralisation of political power into a supranational body.

There has been a tendency for people to either believe that they should be part of the EU and accept everything or not. In fact now it is becoming much clearer that there will be different structures in europe particularly around the Eurozone. That could quite readily result in the non-Euro EU membership being more like the EEA.

Since the introduction of qualified majority voting there has been an ability for decisions to be made without all of the states agreeing to them (aka a Federal Structure). It was Margaret Thatcher that introduced the Single European Act that made the then EEC a federal body. She was the key proponent of a Federal Europe even thought she didn't know this.

The problems with Euro zone sovereign debt and its knock on to banking capitalisation are an issue that the Eurozone countries need to deal with. Once they have dealt with that there will be a need for a renegotiation for the non-Eurozone countries.

It is only when that finishes that it is worth having any form of referendum. Hence I will vote against Monday's motion.

The issue of how to handle Human Rights and the Council of Europe is, of course, a completely separate issue. I am of the view that certain resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should be binding on the European Court of Human Rights. That moves the structure from Kritarchy to a rule of law democracy. That is the change that is needed to deal with some of the absurdities that arise.  posted by john ¶ 7:59 AM 2 comments

  Occupy Wall Street and Technology There are quite a few demonstrations going on about economic exclusion. It is not surprising as a society where the numbers of people who participate in society is continue reducing is not a good society to have.

The error is, however, to believe that it arises from capitalism per se. There is a real problem, but it arises from the economic changes that result from technology.

Whereas in the past large numbers of people used to get reasonably good rates from pay from metal bashing, now machines do a lot more of the work. The people who use the machines make a good living, those who own the machines make a much better living and there are a lot of people not working on the same projects.

If we are going to have greater economic participation we need to respond to that and aim to share out the participation. There are difficulties in doing this in an interconnected world, but it must be recognised.

Firstly, that there is a real problem. There is.
Secondly, that communism is not the answer.  posted by john ¶ 5:42 PM 3 comments

  Yesterday's speech on the economy The link is to the debate yesterday on the economy. I did not mention unemployment in that speech because time was limited and the debate was about the macro economic picture.

Obviously the government does need to work to reduce unemployment. However, that has to fit within the spending envelope which is why I have previously made proposals that reduce unemployment without unsustainable demand from public spending.

Available on Video here


The Opposition are complaining that the forecasts show that the Government will have to borrow £46 billion more than was previously forecast. Their solution is to borrow more money. They are proposing to borrow an additional £31 billion in any one year—I think that that is the precise figure. I asked the shadow Chancellor what he thought the limit on borrowing should be, but he did not answer the question. One presumes therefore that he has no idea what the limit is. Well, the limit on borrowing is called the International Monetary Fund, when it has to come to the rescue when the markets will not fund a country’s deficit.

The reality is that the interest rates on deficits matter, because they represent a perception of the risk of non-repayment, and of the possibility that a Government will become insolvent. The difficulty is that, as a country increases its deficit, it also increases that interest rate. Gradually, the interest rate increases on the whole of Government debt, not just that borrowed in one year. If the whole of Government debt is in the order of £1 trillion, 1% of that is £10 billion. That £10 billion has to be found either from additional taxes over time, or from additional cuts. Labour’s strategy would lead to greater cuts or greater taxes in the long term—probably greater cuts.

Let us look at how we have got into this situation. An interesting person to turn to for quotations on this is Lord Turnbull, who was the Cabinet Secretary at the
start of the third Blair Government. He said that excessive borrowing started to be a problem from 2005. I quote him:

“It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5% a year”,

and he argued that the Treasury should have put more money aside. He said last year that the primary reason Britain was

“in the mess that we’re in”

was that

“public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error”.

He added that a loss of output caused by the financial crisis also contributed to the Budget deficit. The mistake is thinking that the problem is caused by one thing alone. There are a number of factors: one is the banking problem; another is overspending by the previous Labour Government.

What we have before us is a motion to deal with a problem caused partly by overspending, to which the proposed solution is yet more spending. In this instance, that means borrowing by the Government for private spending, to be fair, although a cut in VAT on a temporary basis does not generally feed into people’s pockets, but into those of the corporations that do not reduce their prices and do not have to pay so much tax.

In his memoirs, Tony Blair proposed what should have been done. On page 679, we can read him reflecting on what should have been done, consistent with his analysis of the economy:

“In my view, we should have taken a New Labour way out of the economic crisis: kept direct tax rates competitive, had a gradual rise in VAT and other indirect taxes to close the deficit, and used the crisis to push further and faster on reform.”

Tony Blair was clear that Labour should have put up VAT.

I kept my ballot paper for the Labour leadership election; I did not think it was right for me to fill it in. One interesting thing about that ballot paper was that it came along with the manifestos of the candidates. I looked at the entry for the shadow Chancellor, who said that he had been “leading the fight” against the VAT rise. Last year, he led the fight against the VAT rise; now he says, “Yes, we need the VAT in the long term”, as at least the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) recognises; he must have managed to persuade him.

What question needs to be asked? The Government have a strategy, and the strategy is reducing the deficit. There are obviously difficulties, given that the solution must be worldwide. Is it therefore right to follow the Labour party’s example and borrow yet more money—another £31,000 million a year—increasing the debt and potentially increasing the need for rescue in the long term, or should we keep on with the strategy we have? My view is that we should keep to the strategy that we have got.

This is the earlier intervention where Ed Balls (unsurprisingly) did not answer the question I asked:

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Whatever the Government’s policy, the Opposition’s policy is to borrow more to increase demand. Is there a limit on the borrowing?

Ed Balls: I will return to the hon. Gentleman and his party in a moment. They gave the Government some very good advice 18 months ago, but unfortunately it was not heeded.
  posted by john ¶ 8:20 AM 0 comments

  Lyndon Green - quick off the mark I presented Tescos Computers for Schools at 10am this morning and Lyndon Green had tweeted a picture of the event within 2 hours.

here  posted by john ¶ 11:37 AM 0 comments

  Where is the Official Solicitor? I link to the judgment released today where Wall P recognised that he erred in law in imposing a suspended sentence on Elizabeth Watson when he released her.

It has recently been drawn to my attention that the Official Solicitor is supposed to act to protect people convicted of contempt of court. I wonder what they have been doing.

Obviously they may have been involved in this particular decision, but it is not clear who drew Wall P's attention to his mistake on this case.  posted by john ¶ 10:41 AM 1 comments