Will seeing the back of Atos actually make a difference?

The news that Atos Healthcare are in negotiations to withdraw from their contract with the Department of Work and Pensions to carry out fitness-for-work tests has been welcomed by many, especially those who oppose the way the current assessment regime works. Images of protestors with Socialist Worker placards - never terribly helpful to my mind - and reports of death threats against Atos staff demonstrate the passion with which groups have fought against the way things are done. But I can't help feeling that Atos are the symptom, rather than the cure, and that simply replacing them will make little difference, and might even make matters worse.

Without a sight of the contract, one must presume that Atos are obliged to carry out their assessments at a specified price, agreed in advance with the DWP. They are then free to order their affairs in such a way as to deliver the contract within that cost, maximising profit as far as they can. The profitability of the contract is, it appears, less of a concern than their competence.

But what incentive is there to do the job so poorly as to attract such a high rate of successful appeals as, presumably, Atos have to meet the cost of dealing with them, and the Ministry of Justice have to resource the tribunals - presumably what is driving consideration of levying charges against appellants. It appears to make little sense.

Perhaps it is the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are part of the problem. What targets might you set as part of a contract to deliver fitness-to-work tests? A simple throughput incentive would provide little or no incentive to do the job properly, as the service provider could just pass everyone as being unfit to work. A target rate for failures would incentivise towards failing claimants regardless of whether that is merited.

How flexible is the assessment regime? The application of discretion would suggest that those people with long-term, incurable conditions need assessing less frequently, if at all, after an initial assessment, whereas others might benefit from a more frequent assessment. Does the current system allow that, and what is the impact of assessment on those who feel that they should strive, when tested, to demonstrate the limits of their capabilities, and thus give a falsely optimistic test result?

There is, of course, an underlying problem, that of who should qualify as being in need of support, and how do you ascertain whether or not an individual applicant meets the criteria set. Indeed, what should those criteria be, and what should be paid? And those questions drive the design of any assessment process.

So, unless we answer some of these questions, make relevant changes and discuss them properly, the chances are that, whoever takes the work on, be it a private supplier or by taking it back inhouse, little will change as far as those being assessed are concerned, as I find it hard to believe that Atos are any more heartless or inept as any other similar provider,. And, in any case, the staff who carry out the assessments will probably come from the same pool or have their contracts transferred over to any replacement provider.

There are some short-term solutions, however. Not charging people for appeals would be a good first statement of intent, as it indicates an acceptance that the assessment process is not without flaw - even the best system will have marginal cases. And yes, you may want to consider a means of dissuading frivolous appeals, assuming that they are significant in number, but not in such a way that puts at risk the genuinely vulnerable.

Publishing the terms of the contract as far as is possible would be the right thing to do, especially the Key Performance Indicators. Yes, some of the details will be covered by commercial considerations, but transparency when spending public money is, generally speaking, a good thing, likely to engender greater trust.

Ensuring that any new contract allows for sufficient time to carry out a proper assessment on applicants is important too. The appeals process is stressful, expensive and time consuming, an unnecessary waste of finite resources. Its impact upon those genuine borderline cases, and on those evidently mis-assessed, is traumatising and damaging. So, anything that increases the accuracy rate of assessments is beneficial to all of us.

Other issues, if you like, the bigger ones, require more reflection. Questions of who, how much, and to what end, need a more public debate, which is not shorthand for exchanges of abuse and death threats. If Atos have recorded an average of 163 death threats against their staff per week, that's either going to drive out those who genuinely care, or harden the hearts of those that don't, assuming that any of their staff are so heartless.

But there will always be a need for assessment of some kind, and a requirement for someone to carry out such assessments. There will always be error, and marginality, because the decisions are taken by humans about humans, and as even the Pope doesn't claim to be infallible, there will need to be a right of appeal. We should build compassion and humanity into those processes, whilst understanding that, for some people, compassion has a limit, and our humanity is not there to be abused.

Liberal Democrats, Regionalism and the House of Lords

It will come as no surprise to anyone that the House of Lords is dominated, at least in terms of membership numbers, by London and the South East - it's been a generally held assumption for years. And now, thanks to a recently issued Library Note, the House of Lords has provided some data to demonstrate it, data which does show some interesting news for Liberal Democrats in the rest of England.

Of the Peers who declare the location of their main residence, 492 reside in England. Based on the 2011 census, a proportional split by English Region would be;

• East of England - 55
• East Midlands - 42
• London - 75
• North East - 24
• North West - 66
• South East - 80
• South West - 49
• West Midlands - 52
• Yorkshire and the Humber - 49

The actual figures are;

• East of England - 63
• East Midlands - 14
• London - 152
• North East - 21
• North West - 24
• South East - 114
• South West - 54
• West Midlands - 23
• Yorkshire and the Humber - 27

which demonstrates that, apart form the North East, which is fairly close to its expected figure, what power resides in the Lords is definitely tilted south of the Trent.

The Liberal Democrat benches should, on the same basis, given that there are sixty of them declaring the location of their main residence, be split as follows;

• East of England - 7
• East Midlands - 5
• London - 9
• North East - 3
• North West - 8
• South East - 10
• South West - 6
• West Midlands - 6
• Yorkshire and the Humber - 6

Again, the actual split is;

• East of England - 6
• East Midlands - 1
• London - 17
• North East - 3
• North West - 4
• South East - 11
• South West - 13
• West Midlands - 0
• Yorkshire and the Humber - 5

So, not bad in the East of England, the North East, the South East and Yorkshire and the Humber, not withstanding that Yorkshire should never knowingly be under-represented. However, if anyone in the Leader's Office is reading this, our only Peer in the East Midlands is a hereditary who doesn't show up much, and doing something about both Midlands regions might not be a bad idea.

Throw in someone from the North West, add at least one BAME person, and ensure gender balance at the very least in future lists, and we might end up with a Parliamentary Party in the Lords which ticks a few more of the diversity boxes.

And if someone would like to bring the East of England up to par, I'd be only too glad to offer my services...

As honest doubt lies bleeding and bereft...

It has been a trying day on the internet. In attempting to defend the notion that making change is complex, and that actions have consequences, I have been accused of being in favour of the suffering of the poor and the vulnerable, the retention of Trident, the preservation of the monarchy and of wanting a disproportionately large military.

The defence put up by one formerly rather senior figure in local government is that he presumed that I believed in such things because I didn't entirely agree with him, and therefore must be bad and evil. And, having done so, then demanded that I make my position clear on all of those things. Life is, to be honest, too short. If that's the level of debate I can expect, I've got better things to do, the company of friends, family and loved ones (often combining two or more of the three), country walks and an interest in my local community, where people are generally more real and less tribal.

I have, at least for the time being, seen too much "black and white" debate, too much "I disagree with you, so you must be evil, and bad, and wrong...", even amongst Liberal Democrats. We used to be a bit better than that, something of a family, but I'm not sure that we are any more.

So, I'm going to retreat to the safety of my own small corner of paradise that is the Gipping Valley for a while, and leave the rest of you to carry on as best you can. I'm sure that you'll cope. I'll probably pop up from time to time, with some encouragement, or a moral hug, or some friendly advice, and if you need me, or want to chew the fat, or share a good story or a laugh, do feel free.

Unemployment in Mid Suffolk falls to 4%

Today's labour market figures are, it must be said, pretty encouraging. They're not 'great', because having more than two million unemployed scars the lives of those individuals who are out of work, and I'm not one of those who do triumphalism. However, they augur well for continued economic recovery, for closing the budget deficit, and for spreading the benefits of both so that as many of us as possible benefit.

We are particularly lucky here in Mid Suffolk, in that unemployment is half that of the United Kingdom as a whole, 4% as opposed to 7.7% at the end of September, and the number of JSA claimants is down by more than a quarter over the past year (848, as opposed to 1,135 this time last year).

There are those who have condemned the approach of the Coalition in terms of economic policy, and we will never know the truth of that, especially as the nuts and bolts of the alternatives were never really clearly stated. Besides, economic modelling is still really only an art, not a science, so any arguments either way are conjecture.

But it cannot be denied that the worst of the fallout from the financial crisis of 2008 has now passed, and the mission now is to find ways of ensuring that the vulnerable are sustainably supported in the future. I can't help feeling that politicians need to start turning their attention to that aspect of our economy as policies are fleshed out over the next fifteen months.

Sadly, I fear that we'll have rather more of the heat of blame allocation than the light of long-term policy exposition until May 2015...

Things that I have learned from being a member of a gym

Now that I've been a member of a gym for three months or so - and no, that's not showing off, as I'm still a walrus - some things are becoming apparent.

Firstly, I'm really not young any more. My fellow gym users are, for the most part, in their late teens and twenties, except those who are clearly there to build vast muscles that make them look a bit like bison. Each to their own on that one, I think.

Secondly, the music they play in gyms is suited to people who go to Ibiza to dance and party. That isn't me. However, unless I invest in some serious headphones, or find a gym that plays chamber music whilst one works out, I'm just going to have to put up with that.

Next, tattoos. I don't have one, and this clearly puts me in a fairly small minority, at least within the subgroup described as male users of Klick Fitness in Ipswich. Some of them have lots - it's the sort of thing that one can't help but notice. I'm still not tempted...

And then there's what to do to keep your mind occupied whilst you work out, especially if, like me, you are attempting to burn fat and rebuild aerobic capacity, rather than look like a bison. I tend, for now, to do arithmetic calculations in my head (yes, I know...), but if anyone has any better ideas...

Finally, and much to my surprise, I'm actually beginning to enjoy it a little. Not hugely, as the temptation to opt out is still there, but a little. Perhaps, inside this walrus is a leopard seal waiting to get out?...

Police Bill - Angie Harris uses a pointy stick to beat the Government

It is not often the case that I take against Party Coalition policy, but I'm one of those who remain wholly unconvinced that elected Police Commissioners are a good thing. The idea of a partisan, politicised appointee flies in the face of neutral, needs based crime and justice policy, and so it was with great interest that I noted an amendment sponsored by Baroness Harris of Richmond, or Angie to her friends.

Amendment 1 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill didn't mess about, it sought simply to remove Police and Crime Commissioners from the proposed legislation. I won't quote from the debate, except to highlight her summation...

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, the time is late. We have had nearly three and a quarter hours of debate on one amendment. First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her thoughtful and sensitive summing up of what has been a very important debate and the way that she has responded to the concerns that your Lordships have eloquently and strongly put this afternoon.

It has never been my practice in the 12 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House to vote against my Government - I am proud to say that this is my Government - so today I find this very difficult. This Bill has brought forward something that I consider a true principle. It is an appalling Bill. I simply cannot believe that having directly elected police commissioners will improve the policing of this country, which is what we want. That is what we all want. I have heard all the arguments about how different police authorities have not been very good: I know that. But they have been a jolly sight better than they ever were before and we can improve on them. We should improve on them. My biggest concern, therefore, remains about putting so much power into the hands of one person in the form of police and crime commissioners.

I do not want to waste your Lordships' time any more. The debate has gone backwards and forwards and I have to say that I simply do not believe that these proposals will be beneficial in any way to improving policing in this country. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

The division was called, and when the dust had settled, Angie returned to the chamber with the pointy stick of righteousness (I must find out what it really is...) as teller for the 'contents', those in favour of her amendment, to hear that it had been passed by 188 votes to 176.

Interestingly, this is being treated as a Liberal Democrat rebellion, which is an interesting spin, and as a response to Nick Clegg's call for a stronger liberal voice. It might well be the latter, but it isn't really the former. In fact, only 13 Liberal Democrat Peers supported the amendment, whilst 33 supported the Government. That said, the number of our Peers who let their displeasure be known by simply not voting was significant...

So, time for the roll of honour, as I salute the gallant thirteen - Avebury, Bradshaw, Cotter, Goodhart, Greaves, Harris of Richmond, Linklater of Butterstone, Maclennan of Rogart, Methuen, Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Steel of Aikwood, Strasburger and Tonge.

And you'll note that they're a pretty serious bunch, so I think that the Government will want to give some real consideration to the matter before they overturn it in the Commons where, of course, it will rely on Liberal Democrat votes to do so...

A good reason to pick up that thrown away aluminium can...

Yesterday, I noted that Ros and I had collected a few cans whilst walking near our home. And, whilst today I forgot to bring a bag, we did collect four more cans to go in our recycling bin. But apart from the aesthetic value of doing so, I did wonder just how much good it does otherwise, so I've had a look.

Apparently, making an aluminium can from raw materials uses twenty times as much energy as doing so from recycled material. The energy saved by recycling just one aluminium can is enough to power a television set for three hours, so it seems like a no-brainer, really, except that the benefit to the person recycling the can is, at best, indirect.

reuse, recycle, etc...

That said, if the soft drinks, or beer, producer can pay less for the can per unit, they either pass on those savings to purchasers, or pay out more in dividends to shareholders, either of which is probably a good thing. And yes, I acknowledge that they might pay more in terms of salary to senior staff - more likely, one might cynically conclude - but the possibility is still there, and if the market is working effectively, all of those things are likely.

The environmental benefits are slightly more explicit too. Aluminium smelting, apart from using a lot of energy, produces sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide, two of the nasties that form smog and acid rain, plus the process of extracting a ton of ore creates an equal weight in caustic mud.

You can recycle an aluminium can over and over again, multiplying the effect as much as six times per year - an recycled can is processed and back on the shelves in sixty days, it seems.

So. as we've apparently saved enough energy to power our television for a day, I can feel quite good about my day's effort...

UKIP support Suffolk Tories and vote to cut children's services

Being childless myself, I am fortunate in that the inadequacies of Suffolk County Council when it comes to education don't directly affect me. On the other hand, when your local authority ranks 146th (out of 152) at primary level and 137th at secondary level, you have to wonder whether cutting expenditure on Children and Young People services is really that good an idea.

For a 6% cut in real terms is what our local Conservatives have come up with for the coming year, which can hardly augur well. Of course, it does mean that the council tax precept is frozen once again, which is fine for Suffolk council taxpayers in terms of their wallets, but not necessarily great for those of us who see education as an investment. But, to add insult to injury, it appears that the Conservatives intend to add the "Pickles bribe" to the reserves rather than to protect services. 

And whilst the Conservatives probably send their children to private schools, or are too old for it to matter any more, you do have to wonder why UKIP were so happy to support the Conservative budget for 2014/15. After all, as our nearby UKIP councillor was so proud to claim how pleased he was to be fighting for our country again, having underperforming schools is something he might want to oppose.

But, for those people who were so keen to vote UKIP to pull Suffolk out of Europe send a message, the idea that, as UKIP councillor for Oulton, Reg Silvester, said; 

the UKIP group as a whole supported the budget, and he felt the administration had done a good job.

what exactly was the point of voting for them when, if more cuts and unaccountability were wanted, one could just have voted Conservative instead?

I'm guessing that Stephen Searle won't be putting out a leaflet telling local residents what he has done (and now I come to think about it, what has he done?), as school cutbacks are hardly likely to be popular. And, if his colleague is to be believed, so much for the idea that they are independently minded and unwhipped.

It just goes to show, perhaps, that by voting UKIP you simply get do-nothings with a different coloured rosette. At least I know what their Conservative counterparts stand for...

Creeting St Peter: exercise, a good deed and some light environmentalism

Despite the wind, it's been quite a nice day in Creeting St Peter so far, and so Ros and I went out earlier for our usual walk up Creeting Lane towards Stowupland. And whilst it was good to be out, the amount of litter, even on a remote country lane, was vaguely annoying.

A small gesture for the environment

However, being vaguely annoyed doesn't achieve an awful lot, and shooting those who litter isn't encouraged, so I decided that, once we had turned for home, I would pick up some of the recyclable stuff and bring it home, and here it is - two lager cans, a Diet Coke can and an energy drink can, plus a squash bottle.

The way I see it, I have tidied our parish, protected wildlife and improved the Mid Suffolk recycling rate all in one go. And as there appears to be a never ending supply of idiots too feckless to take their litter home (although apparently not so feckless that they can't drive to a remote spot to dump their detritus...), I think that I might, when walking locally, have to take a bag in future...

Do not feed the sadist, sorry, troll...

One of the best pieces of advice to give anyone who wants to engage on the internet is "don't feed the trolls". Admittedly, it isn't always easy to detect trolls, as there are those who define 'troll' as 'anyone who doesn't agree with me', but the general rule is still a wise one to adhere to.

And it now appears that the theory that such people are merely firestarters has some basis to it. Research done in Canada suggests that Internet trolls are more likely than others to show signs of sadism, psychopathy and "Machiavellianism": a disregard for morality and tendency to manipulate or exploit others.

Now, one does need to be cautious, and this was an online survey, but as someone who has occasionally mused out loud on the tendency for an online minority to behave in a manner that they would surely never replicate in 'real life', it does appeal as a possible theory, and offers a means of dealing with them, or an excuse not to tolerate their behaviour.

Apparently, sadism is the most prevalent influence causing trolls to behave as they do, and as most of us don't knowingly interact with sadists in real life, it's little wonder that we struggle with such behaviour online. And for those of us who take the view that, as reasonable people, we're willing to engage in rational debate, the notion that there are people out there who simply prefer to abuse allcomers is a trying, and ultimately depressing one.

So, the advice holds - don't feed the trolls - and, if in doubt, stick to fora where moderation is effective and complaints about conduct taken seriously.

The Swiss to become poster children for second order consequentials?

This weekend's referendum vote by the Swiss to impose strict migration levels into the Confederation is a demonstration of how the political understanding of the implication of free movement of people is not shared by a significant chunk of voters. The Swiss people may now be about to find out just how far the world has moved on.

One presumes that, in order to enforce this, they will need to tighten border controls, which will make life a little more annoying, but that is entirely their choice, and it will give Government, at both the Federal and cantonal levels, more control over population levels. So far, so good, presumably.

However, the Swiss have to get out of the country, and being surrounded by the European Union on all sides, the unanswered question thus far is, "What will the European Union do in response?".

Early suggestions include a review of trade access agreements, and a restriction on the right of Swiss citizens to live and work in the European Union, neither of which is likely to do the Swiss economy much good.

Many Swiss voters, especially those who voted 'yes' in the referendum, may not have understood the potential consequences of voting as they did, as they aren't direct beneficiaries of free trade and free movement of people, and it is perhaps a failure of those who do understand to make the case, but they may not like what happens next much.

I'm going to Vienna in May, and had in mind a pretty journey by train from Zurich. But, as I'm seemingly somewhat unwelcome in Switzerland, perhaps I ought to take a different route instead. For no country is an island any more, and the Swiss might find themselves dwelling on that point in the weeks and months ahead.

Salamander - who knew that the Belgians could make a decent thriller?

My Twitter timeline has, on weekends past, been full of people commenting on the latest Scandinavian drama on TV, but I've never really gotten into any of them, not even Borgen (yes, I know...). And it is true that BBC4 has found some really interesting stuff, including Inspector Montalbano. I want to be Salvo, I want the three hour lunches, the fine wine, the generally looking cool and solving mysteries in an eccentric but morally upright(ish) manner. The swimming I can do without, but otherwise...

And so, when Ros flicked through the television section of today's paper and discovered a new Belgian series, I was sufficiently intrigued to give up the endless task of managing my e-mail to take a look. And well worth doing so, I must admit.

The series opens with the final stages of a bank robbery in a private bank in Brussels, where the robbers clearly have a plan, as they have targeted certain bank boxes. It becomes apparent very quickly that the boxes contain highly sensitive material involving sixty-six of the most senior figures in Belgium, and a cover-up is organised.

Unfortunately, the break-in comes to the attention of Chief Inspector Paul Gerardi, clearly not a 'by the book' man, who insists on investigating further...

I won't say any more, for fears of spoiling it, but for those with an interest in politics, think of this as Borgen meets The Bridge, although I wouldn't like to say where it will go next. Needless to say, Gerardi is already on the run, and the body count is steadily rising, after just two episodes - tonight was a double header.

So, for some Flemish drama, plus some interesting architecture, catch up on i-Player and settle down next Saturday for Episode 3, perhaps with some decent Belgian beer. I think you might be pleasantly surprised...

The joys of being a 'politically exposed person'

I have been having what can only be described as a feisty exchange with a UK financial institution in recent weeks, caused by a piece of legislation that I was only dimly aware of, the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

You may be surprised to hear that I am not actually engaged in money laundering - trust me, I wouldn't be travelling standard class on the train if I was - but in this era of international financial transfers, financial institutions are obliged to be far more careful than they might have been previously. This may have something to do with the increasing tendency to make organisations and individuals financially, and sometimes criminally, responsible for policing the acts of members of society, but it inevitably makes life more difficult for the inherently honest, i.e. most of us, by imposing a series of barriers to be surmounted before doing something that would otherwise be quite straightforward.

Some years ago, I invested a modest amount in said institution, and the funds have sat there ever since. I probably provided them with some evidence at the time, but they now wanted to see further proof of identity, as well as evidence as to where the funds came from. Easier said than done, as I hadn't retained the relevant documents - they're older than tax law requires me to retain, but they insisted.

I did indicate that I was curious as to why they should, after all this time, require such documentation, and I was told that it was a requirement of UK legislation, possibly their first mistake - I am a bureaucrat, and am 'rule-curious'. In reply, they indicated that they were sorry, but failed to provide details of the legislation, except to note that I am, apparently, a 'politically exposed person', although they didn't explain why.

I did guess, however, and did some research, uncovering the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which indeed describe the criteria for such a classification. There was, however, a catch - whilst those holding high political office, as well as their direct family, are covered, there is an exception for domestic politicians.

So, in a spirit of inquiry, I asked if they were relying on the relevant Appendix, and whether they were aware of the exception, to which the answer came, "Yes, and yes, but it doesn't matter, we're within our rights to apply rules that go beyond the legislation stated.". I wasn't impressed. Whilst I acknowledge the right of the bank to apply their own criteria, I do object to being deliberately misled by a bank official as to the nature of those criteria and the manner in which they are applied.

But I am rather better informed as to the potential complications of my financial arrangements and of the need to retain paperwork in future. More filing...

Spatial intelligence and the Returning Officer... (the chamber ensemble mix)

So, there I was, vaguely thinking about candidate selection, when my Twitter feed was suddenly disturbed by talk of Question Time, most of it disapproving as usual (David Starkey? Really?). But amidst the despair, one comment caught my attention like a brightly coloured fish.

Belinda Brooks-Gordon, one of my Region's candidates for Europe, asked why no-one ever looks at how candidates are selected, suggesting that you could 'degender' them. I was intrigued, so I asked what she meant. An intriguing Twitter conversation followed, in which we were joined by Jennie Rigg, and it got me thinking. In the search for equality of outcome, have I rather forgotten for whom the outcome is intended?

Let me explain. As a Returning Officer, the aim is to develop, and manage, a process whereby each candidate is treated the same, a process which can be defended against appeal. And that, of course, is good for Returning Officers, easy to operate, ticks all the appropriate bureaucratic boxes, etc., etc. But does it serve the candidates or, for that matter, the members that well? Suddenly, I'm not so sure...

Designing a simple process that doesn't discriminate is difficult, so perhaps I shouldn't try. Instead, why not offer candidates equality of opportunity? I could offer each candidate a slot which they could use as they prefer, giving a presentation, or a speech, or simply having a conversation with members, playing to their strengths as they see fit. It does offer a challenge to members, in that a direct comparison is more complex, but is that such a bad thing?

So, does that avoid inadvertent discrimination or bias on the part of the process, and will it lead to the selection of a more diverse range of candidates? Well, we'll never know unless we try...

Fancy being the Liberal Democrat candidate for South Suffolk?

Nice place, South Suffolk. Two rather nice towns in Sudbury and Hadleigh, some gorgeous villages - Boxford and Kersey to name but two - and some sensational ecclesiastical architecture. Oh yes, it has its problems, but the locals are friendly, the politics is a little gentler and more personal, and it does have a decent liberal vote, even now.

What it doesn't have is a Liberal Democrat candidate, partly due to the combination of distraction of the Local Party by county elections and partly due to the Returning Officer. And, in fairness, I've been a bit distracted too, by exams and travel.

But, given the slightly surprising demise of Tim Yeo, South Suffolk is in need of a decent MP, and why shouldn't that be a Liberal Democrat? After all, we've come second in the last two contests, we hold two of the County divisions in the seat (and only narrowly lost a third), and it's the sort of place that elects Liberal Democrats elsewhere in the country.

So, once I've worked out how to advertise the vacancy - I've got the instructions somewhere - I shall don my Returning Officer hat and look forward to the pleasures of candidate selection. Now where did I put that paperwork?...

#timetotalk - a reminder of our responsibilities

I have followed today's discussion of mental health issues on Liberal Democrat Voice with mixed emotions. Partly because I have been pretty fortunate in many ways to have made it to nearly fifty without having experienced serious depression or any other mental health issue, but partly because I know that there are those close to me who have been less fortunate.

And, when you hear the stories of those who have battled their demons, or who live each day with their symptoms, it is a reminder that life is not always as simple as one might hope.

It is also a reminder that, in a genuine community, all of us have a responsibility to look out for those who need our help, be it by personally finding time to lend practical help, or by campaigning for, and resourcing proper support.

Overseas voters - Ross Clark spectacularly misses the point...

In today's Times, Ross Clark, under the heading, "Expats who don't pay taxes have no right to an MP", demonstrates how not to 'get it', responding to the Liberal Democrat proposal to create constituencies for non-resident voters.

As he puts it, "what right do they have to their own representatives?... Why should the MP for Madrid Este have a say in what goes on in London?". It is a not unreasonable question in itself, but appears to ignore completely the problems caused by having large numbers of, say, Spanish-resident voters, casting their votes in, say, Ipswich.

His argument that, without taxation obligations, there should be no representation, would be fine if he were calling for their right to vote to be removed, but he doesn't. It seems that he is relaxed at the prospect of 2,500 overseas voters in each constituency having a decisive say in an election, whereas under the Liberal Democrat proposal, they would be concentrated in the same way that resident voters are.

And, if Spanish-resident voters were entitled to seven seats, that would be rather less than the number of marginal seats in which the majority was smaller than the number of non-resident voters.

In a increasingly diffuse world, where citizens might live and work overseas for short periods or long, but retain a domicile in the United Kingdom, the right to vote is an important one. It is equally important to link representation to voter in a transparent way, and the notion of overseas constituencies is one way of achieving that.

So, full marks for spotting the issue, but a complete fail for inconsistency of approach...

The joy of train apps

It is hardly a secret that I like trains. Indeed, as I write, I am on a Eurostar as it cuts through Northern France between Lille Europe and Calais-Fréthun. But it is not just the actual travelling that entertains me, it is the planning, the anticipation, if you like.

I have, as a result, been a big fan of the DB Navigator app, which allows you to plan a route from, say, Stowmarket to Vladivostok, choosing your preferred connections or breaking up the journey as you see fit, so that you can break your journey between Chisinau and Bucharest in Iasi, because the scheduled arrival at 5.50 a.m. is a bit on the antisocial side for a night owl like me.

But it isn't necessarily convenient for purchasing tickets from your required starting point, so I've spent the spare moments of my weekend exploring the wonderful world of railway apps for the iPad. So far, I've found the Voyagés-SNCF app, which is alright, but not spectacular, the SNCB app, which is quite nice, but best of all are the Swiss railway apps, for there are two of them. There is a standard one, and a social networking app, whereby you can become Mayor of a station, just as you can in FourSquare, gain vouchers for use in purchasing future rail tickets, and find out where your nearest station is, seemingly anywhere in Europe, and see when trains are due to run. You can invite your friends to join, 'chat' with them in real time, and log in via Twitter.

Next, I ought to see who else have train apps. Poland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, perhaps?...

ALDE Election Congress: reflections after the event

So, the Verhofstadt/Rehn joint ticket is unleashed upon an unsuspecting world, with a healthy 80% mandate, and most people seem to be happy that their goals have been achieved. All is, therefore, as well as it might be. The deal cut, whereby one or other candidate will visit a particular location based on the needs of the local member party, is clearly designed to allow the most attractive aspects of the ALDE platform to be showcased in a manner appropriate to the political culture and circumstances that prevail. That too appears to be a thoroughly good thing.

So, what have we learned from this?

Firstly, if you give people an opportunity to do something that suits them, they will take it, even if it might not, in the long run, be terribly wise. Second, process is a good thing, and acts as a means against summary (in)justice. Thirdly, politicians need bureaucrats, firstly to design process, and secondly to manage it.

And what, I hear you ask, does that mean?

Well, it means that we need to be far more transparent about how we decide upon our delegates to ALDE, both to Council and to Congress, especially as we may see a significant reduction in our entitlement in future years. In the past, there hasn't been a lot of competition, especially for Congress - we have a lot of places, travel and accommodation are unsubsidised, and the delegation has presumably grown in size as our electoral performance has steadily improved. If that changes, you need process, and one that is apparent to all.

It is something that has troubled me for a while now, and the events of the past fortnight have reminded me that the longer it is left, the more pressing it will become, and the solutions potentially less satisfying.

Ah well, I needed a project anyway...

ALDE Election Congress: it's make your mind up time...

Alright, I've asked all of the questions, gained an understanding of the issues, listened to the speeches, even the ones in French. The dynamic duo of Rehn and Verhofstadt have outlined their vision for Europe - one that works towards peace and liberty, one that creates opportunity for its citizens, one that is democratically accountable. They believe in a reformed Europe, run in a spirit of transparency.

I have been impressed by the grace and good humour displayed by Olli Rehn, and the passion and enthusiasm of Guy Verhofstadt, and believe that the team approach offers the best available alternative in the quest for a more liberal Europe.

And so, with apologies to my Party leader, I'm ignoring the entreaties made to oppose the resolution endorsing the joint Verhofstadt/Rehn ticket, and will be casting my vote in support accordingly.

ALDE: the big day arrives...

Alright, so I'm in Brussels, and the big vote is about five hours away. Do I;

a) vote for the deal as agreed by Messrs Verhofstadt and Rehn;

b) vote against it

c) abstain

Let's recap the various arguments. Firstly, for the deal. It is an inevitability that Verhofstadt will be the candidate, given that the two men have shaken hands on a deal, so giving him a proper, sizeable mandate demonstrates loyalty and commitment to him. Also, if the deal is rejected, what happens regarding a candidate? Would, under such circumstances, another candidate emerge, and would they be any more acceptable/capable? There is no obvious sign of a willing alternative that I am aware of, so they likelihood would be that either Verhofstadt would be chosen anyway, or that ALDE wouldn't have a candidate.

An argument for voting against the deal is that we've been told to do so by our Party leader. The reasons for doing so aren't entirely clear, but then Party loyalty doesn't always require good reasons. And, of course, the deal was done without our active involvement, so a vote against could indicate our displeasure.

So, why abstain? I suppose that an abstention would indicate that I'd rather see a contest and debate some of the issues that ebb and flow about the contest, about the future direction of ALDE, whilst not indicating a fundamental objection to Verhofstadt as a candidate.

Much to think about then, and not an entirely easy decision to make. So, I'd better get on and listen to the debate. I'm going to have to make my mind up at some point though...

Letting the train take the strain

So, I'm on my way to Brussels, and am waiting amongst a relatively jolly bunch of England rugby supporters - they're on their way to Paris - at St Pancras (I'm a bit early for my train, unusually).

It's been a good day so far, in that I've had good news at work - I've passed the third of four sets of exams - and my journey from the Gipping Valley has run smoothly thus far. If only my spine was working as well...

But ALDE awaits, and an adventure in loyalty too, so with the prospect of good beer and better company, it is goodbye to Great Britain for a day or two, and hello Europe!...

Ros in the Lords: Railways in East Anglia

First buses, and then trains...

Ros and I are what one might describe as vocal commenters on the efficacy of our local rail franchise. National Express East Anglia were, to be extremely generous, bloody awful, and whilst Greater Anglia have tried very hard, they are hamstrung by more rail infrastructure and elderly rolling stock. Ros was keen to find out what plans the Government have to improve matters, and so it was her question to the Minister which was next up...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): My Lords, I thought that I would start with a Michael Caine moment. Not a lot of people know this, but the east of England is one of only two regions that make a net contribution to the Treasury. That is quite interesting, because when people talk about English regions, they talk about Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle. They do not think about Norwich, Chelmsford and Ipswich. It is a really impressive feat, particularly when you consider the rather poor investment in road and rail infrastructure that the east of England has had for the past half-century.

I wish to focus my comments today on just part of the region: the counties of Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex and of course my home county of Suffolk. I am really pleased to see that those areas are all represented by speakers in today’s debate. Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire are of course within the eastern region in government terms, but in rail terms they are quite a separate region, so I will leave them to one side. I want to try to make the case for more strategic investment in our region. Given her background, I know that the Minister will bring a real understanding of the issue and of the importance of investment.

Many parts of our regional rail infrastructure have had no modernisation in the past half-century. Much of the rolling stock is now 40 years old. Recent problems with the franchise holders and now with the franchise process itself have resulted in a miserable passenger experience for far too many people in our region. Passengers are being asked to pay higher fares every year, but experience a worse service overall. The award of an interim franchise to Greater Anglia, which has now been extended for a short period, has meant that investment in rolling stock, which is so desperately needed, cannot be made. It has improved the reliability of the service, but faces an uphill struggle against problems caused by poor infrastructure; notably signalling, which brought the entire line into London to a complete halt on Tuesday this week. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on the question of the franchise for our region.

It does not have to be like this. A few years ago, one of the very worst areas in our region was the misery line from Southend to Fenchurch Street, which has now been transformed by new investment. Right through the region and particularly on the main lines, keeping costs down in the old BR days resulted in a number of inadequate stretches of track. I am really pleased that some of these false economies have now been rectified. It is not on the tip of everyone's tongue, but the completion of the Beccles loop, which cost £4 million, has been transformative. On the East Suffolk line, usage has gone up 12% since December, because the Beccles loop and the associated signalling have enabled an hourly train service to run. That indicates how a relatively modest investment can pay dividends.

The eastern regional economy is driven by centres of growth in Cambridge, Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, supported by the market towns and their rural hinterland. Our region also plays a key part in driving forward the capital’s economy. That is especially true of Essex. At its most basic, without the tens of thousands of people who endure a daily commute into London from Essex, our entire economy would grind to a halt. Cambridge, Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Harlow are already hubs of science, innovation and new technology.

East Anglia’s ports have an unparalleled opportunity to develop the offshore energy industry. Felixstowe is already the fourth largest container port in the world and has created around 40,000 jobs in the area. If it is to compete with Antwerp and Rotterdam, it needs infrastructure that is fit for purpose. Some improvements have been made, but further improvement to the Felixstowe to Nuneaton freight corridor is an essential part of ensuring the continued growth, given the congestion on the adjacent A14. Investment in the Ipswich chord is another good start but we need to continue investing. I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his place today and speaking in this debate. He has done more to keep rail freight on the agenda than anyone else in the country.

East Anglia is one of the fastest-growing parts of the UK. Both commuters and long-distance travellers are growing in number on all the routes under discussion, both to London and between towns and cities in the region. More housing is planned—about 360,000 more houses in the four counties over the next planning period. When I talk to planners across the region, they say that they are concentrating the building, the new-housing growth, in areas with good access to the rail network. Of course, this is good transport planning, but only if the network has the capacity to cope with the growth.

Network Rail is currently basing assumptions on a 75% growth in passenger use over the next 30 years. This simply does not accord with the growth in recent years, and is considered by people who know to be a serious underestimate. The burgeoning economic strength of the region is being increasingly threatened by gridlock, congestion, and capacity shortfall on the network. Local business and quality of life are being undermined. Rail investment has transformed other parts of East Anglia.

I have mentioned the misery line, but the introduction of the Cambridge express service and other improvements on the King’s Lynn-to-London route have made a massive difference. They can unlock areas for sustainable housing and business growth. We need significant but not unrealistic investment in additional infrastructure and rolling stock, including tackling congestion in and around London Liverpool Street and lines to the north through north London, Essex, and Hertfordshire.

In Cambridgeshire, the Ely North junction is a bottleneck which causes problems throughout the network in our part of the region. This really needs to be unlocked to allow the growth of regionally significant routes, including freight. In Suffolk, a passing loop at Wickham Market would further improve the East Suffolk line and will be absolutely essential if Sizewell C gets the go-ahead. This needs to be coupled with more frequent inter-regional services.

A longer-term aspiration for the region, and one which has been talked about since long before I first came into local government in the early 1990s, is the east-west rail link, a link between Cambridge and Oxford. It is not about linking the two old rivals but about providing access between the south-west and south Midlands to the east of the country in a way which bypasses London and releases valuable capacity there.

The rolling stock on the main line is simply not fit for purpose. The Great Eastern main line is badly in need of new intercity stock or new and refurbished trains. We have a hotchpotch of rolling stock which has been scraped together from the rejects of other areas. It has an average age of 25 years. Greater Anglia has made some improvements in cleanliness which are greatly welcome, but, with the uncertainty of the franchise in recent years, travelling on our main line trains can be a pretty unpleasant experience, with tatty seats, malfunctioning doors, and, even worse, malfunctioning toilets.

It is not really just about the links between the main towns and cities. I live close to a market town, and I am very well aware not only of how important rail is to the prosperity of my town but also of the importance of branch lines to many of the smaller market towns. These lines across our four counties offer commuter, tourism, and everyday travel opportunities for communities. This connectivity can be further exploited to offer further economic opportunities and housing growth if the services were faster and more frequent.

Services are operated with basic trains, which, in many cases, have serious accessibility constraints. Line speeds are often poor and impaired by issues such as single sections and level crossings. Experience has shown that improving core services, frequency, speed, and so on vastly increases rail usage. The many different users of the lines to Southminster, Braintree, Sudbury, Harwich, Felixstowe, and so on would all increase in number if these constraints were improved.

These lines have been much promoted by thriving community rail partnerships, such as the Crouch Valley, the Gainsborough, Mayflower, Wherry, and Bittern lines. There are 11 community rail lines in Suffolk which have been really successful in raising the profile of the railway locally and in some cases doubling the number of passengers using them. Just to echo the point made by the Minister in the previous debate on buses, they really show the value of harnessing local involvement, because community rail partnerships are harnessing this enthusiasm, recruiting volunteers to work with local authorities in the rail industry, securing improvements to the appearance of stations, and so on. It has involved a lot of hard work by dedicated people.

But they can only go so far and in the end it comes down to the need for the continuation and security of local authority funding to keep the work of these community rail partnerships going, and the need for additional rolling stock to accommodate the greater number of passengers being carried.

I hope I have been able in this brief time to make a case for more investment in our thriving region and for the fact that it could produce even more revenue for the Exchequer than it currently does. I look forward to hearing contributions from other noble Lords and from my noble friend the Minister.

Having a nice chat with my new friends at @Eurostar...

I like Eurostar. I like the sense of speed, combined with a view. I like travelling from city centre to city centre. And now that I have the taste for train travel, if I'm going somewhere without Ros, or travelling separately from her for some reason, the idea of going by train is quite appealing.

Eurostar have, evidently, seen me coming, as I discovered today. I had received an e-mail with an up to date statement of my Eurostar Plus points, and I noticed that this weekend's trip wasn't shown. So, being vaguely efficient - mostly Ros's doing, I accept - I rang to check things.

"Ah yes,", said the very nice woman at the other end of the phone line, "you should have those, and I'll sort that out, they'll be on your account tomorrow.". I noted how helpful this was, and that I was using Eurostar to travel further afield in March.

She then told me that, from next month, I'll be able to buy through tickets to a whole range of places across Germany, presumably connecting through Brussels and Cologne, which sounds quite exciting for someone who, like me, gets pleasure out of making their own travel arrangements and exploring alternative routes.

So, a task done and useful information gleaned, not bad for one day...

ALDE: competing loyalties as Clegg and Verhofstadt square up

Alright, where were we? Ah yes...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "federalism". Guy Verhofstadt is a federalist, and a very passionate one at that. He's also Belgian, but that isn't all that important, after all, good things come from Belgium, like beer and frites... and Magritte, now I think of it. It is, however, a combination that makes some people nervous, and others angry.

Mr Verhofstadt wants to be the Liberal candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, an unlikely, but not impossible, eventuality. However, there are those liberals who don't think that his candidacy is a good idea, so they went away and found a potentially credible alternative. Olli Rehn was that alternative, currently serving as European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, and a Vice-President of the European Commission. He's a Finn, and not as frightening to those who find charismatic, passionate Belgian federalists scary. He isn't as charismatic, but this is Europe, where charisma is optional, so that's alright.

A campaign ensued, with the early running being made by the Manchurian Belgian candidate, snapping up endorsements from all of the Benelux member parties and generally being everywhere. The Rehn campaign, however, struck back with a concordat signed by a number of liberal leaders, including Nick Clegg, endorsing him. It all looked to be quite exciting, and given that the Germans and the British were expected to vote for Rehn, it was going to be quite close too, assuming that the British delegation voted as instructed.

And that's where the wheels fell off. As a friend once said, trying to organise Liberal Democrats can be like stacking frogs in a wheelbarrow sometimes, and so it was decided to 'manage' the delegation to ensure, as far as possible, that it voted the 'right way'. Luckily, I made the cut, which is nice.

But, behind the scenes, one of the candidates may have concluded that he might not win, and the contest was causing some concern amongst the member parties. So, the Dutch Prime Minister and the new National Chairman of the FDP were sent off to make a deal. The deal was done, the candidates shook hands on it, and it was decided. Verhofstadt is to be the candidate for the Presidency, with Rehn to be nominated for a key position in the next Commission. Very neat, you may think.

Well, yes, but for the fact that our Leader doesn't like it...

This isn't a deal Nick Clegg or the Liberal Democrats have signed up to, and we won't be supporting it. We will continue to back Olli Rehn, and we regard him as being at the top of the liberal ticket across Europe, certainly in the UK. Nick Clegg will not be campaigning with Guy Verhofstadt and does not support at all his views of a federal Europe.

That's telling me, isn't it? So, obviously, I will be voting against the deal, as he would like me to. But I am being lobbied to vote for the deal by my MEP, Andrew Duff, someone I have a lot of time for. He makes some very good points, and I find myself wondering, "Exactly what does voting down the deal actually achieve?". Presumably, even if it were to be voted down, Rehn would withdraw from the contest, leaving Verhofstadt to be elected unopposed. And who else is going to vote against it, now that both men have written to us all, asking us to accept it? What, apart from a gesture, is the point?

So, as I'm an elected delegate, elected by Federal Conference delegates, what do you think I should do? The vote takes place on Saturday afternoon, so time is short...

'I vote Liberal', a website for the European elections

This weekend sees a special Election Congress to select the Liberal candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, and whilst the two erstwhile candidates, Guy Verhofstadt and Olli Rehn, have shaken hands on a deal whereby Guy will be the candidate and Olli will be nominated for a prominent role in the next Commission, the deal itself still has to be ratified.

But Saturday also sees the launch of a new pan-European website, www.ivoteliberal.eu, which will allow voters to find out more about all of the European liberal and democrat candidates for May's election, including a profile of each with contact and social media details.

The site will allow anyone to find candidates based on their specialist interest, country or political party, as well as to find out what European liberals stand for.

I'll certainly be adding a link to it from here...

Ros in the Lords: Bus Services

It was ironic that 10 October saw two transport debates for the incoming Minister to deal with, but as Susan Kramer is an old friend, I'm fairly confident that she didn't mind too much.

In the first, Bill Bradshaw renewed his annual challenge to the Government to do more to support the bus industry and Ros took up the debate on behalf of rural non-drivers such as myself. Readers may note that I am referred to as a gentleman at one point. I try not to take it personally...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD): My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for tabling and introducing today’s debate, which has become a sort of annual fixture. It is a real pity that the importance of buses to the public is not reflected in the interest that the House takes in public transport generally and buses in particular. It is not just a courtesy at this point to say how much I welcome the presence of my noble friend Baroness Kramer at the Dispatch Box. I have known the noble Baroness for many years and I know that her hands-on experience of transport, particularly the financing of it, is going to be of real benefit to the House, to the department and to the Government, so she is very welcome.

I wish to focus my few remarks today on the question of rural bus services, which is a topic close to my heart. Like many Members of this House, I split my time between my home in the country in a village of fewer than 200 people, and my flat in London, which is close to a main road along which around a dozen services run about every five minutes during the day and then continue to run through the night, so the contrast is very stark. About seven years ago when the gentleman who is now my husband first came to see me in Suffolk, he asked the Londoners’ question: “When is the next bus?”. “Thursday”, I told him. “We don’t need real-time passenger information; we just need a calendar”. Now my village does not have a bus service at all and I do not have a problem with that. When I was first elected to the county council in 1993, I recall looking at bus routes where the per-passenger subsidy was greater than a taxi fare, and that is clearly untenable. However, people who live in small villages still need to access services and not everyone can run a car. In my village the answer has come in the form of demand-responsive transport. It is called Suffolk Links and it is run by a not-for-dividend-profit organisation called Optua. Using a mixture of paid and volunteer staff it provides a very good service to villages like mine and, while it is not as convenient as a car, it is very much better than a weekly bus and much cheaper than a taxi.

These demand-responsive services are suffering from a combination of local authority cuts, regulatory burdens and an unhelpful financial regime, so I would appreciate it if the noble Baroness could perhaps write to me setting out what the Government’s current thinking is on the demand-responsive transport sector. It is becoming quite urgent as there is now very real pressure on these services because of the withdrawal of bus services from larger communities which in my day on the council would not have been considered marginal. Central government cuts to local authorities and to the bus operators’ support grant, along with changes to the concessionary fares scheme, have meant that many services are no longer seen as viable. Close to us in Suffolk is the village of Stowupland. It has a population of around 1,800 so it is a decent size. Due to its previously good bus links—it had an hourly service—it has a large population of retired people. There are also quite a number of people in the village living in socially rented housing. Having lost their weekend and evening services some time ago, First has recently announced the withdrawal of all bus services from the village. This is a terrible blow to the many people who rely totally on buses will have a major impact on the fabric of the village.

Lest noble Lords think that I am focusing too much on Suffolk, North Yorkshire County Council is consulting on a proposal to cut a further 25% of bus support, and Dorset 28%. In Norfolk, the popular Coasthopper service is to be cut by a third; that is perhaps what my noble friend Lord Bradshaw was referring to. These are all rural counties and many small communities will be badly hit by this level of cuts. We need to remember that 10% of the rural population does not have access to a car. Those people will suffer increased isolation and have real problems trying to access essential services. It is all very well for the Chancellor to stand up at his conference and say that jobseekers are going to have to go to the jobcentre daily, but how on earth are rural claimants to get there? There is a desperate lack of joined-up thinking in all of this.

As another example, most Suffolk villages, even the smallest, have a group of a dozen or so council houses which were built after the war. They were built at a time when land was cheap and families were larger, so on the whole they are quite big. It is therefore not always easy to find tenants for them. Having no access to bus services is not going to make it any easier to find tenants for these houses, especially when you couple that with the changes to housing benefit, which are making larger properties much harder to let.

I would like the noble Baroness to outline for us how the Government’s role in bus policy is currently being defined. Is there still a role for government or is it simply being left to a combination of market forces and cash-strapped local authorities to deal with? I wonder whether the Department for Transport is aware that there is a real perception that the Government are no longer supportive of the bus industry and its needs. We have heard the questions about the changes to the concessionary fares scheme and the Bus Service Operators Grant, which have not helped the bus industry one bit. The mood music really is important. For example, Eric Pickles’ proposal that people should be allowed to park on the road for 15 minutes is just plain daft. A succession of cars parking for 15 minutes is as bad as one being parked there for the whole day. If it blocks the road and makes the smooth running of buses and cars and safe pedestrian crossing more difficult, it is a very silly idea. Billing it as a pro-high street measure reveals a failure to understand the dynamics of people and traffic on high streets.

There is another area about which I am concerned, and I would be interested to know whether the department has had consultations and discussions with the Department for Education and the Department for Transport on home-to-school transport. In rural areas this has always been provided by a combination of large and small operators using the same buses on the school runs and the service runs. As the services are disappearing, the school runs by themselves will almost certainly not be viable for the operators. This is particularly key where there are smaller operators in the rural areas, because they are the ones who are finding the going tough and withdrawing from the industry altogether. Councils have a statutory obligation to provide home-to-school transport, so they could, ironically, end up having to run a bus fleet in order to get children to school, which would be very much more expensive than subsidising transport. I would like to know a little more about that.

Finally, it would of course be churlish not to welcome the Government’s Better Bus Areas programme, particularly the announcement today. My heart sings for Merseyside and so on. However, my plea to the Government, particularly to the noble Baroness, is not to forget rural areas. People rely on buses and they will be badly impacted by these changes.