Newsletter RSS Feed

Civitas Email Update - September 2010

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:10:02 +0100

Civitas Email Alert - September 2010

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

September 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Crime and Justice

Civitas' research into criminal justice takes an evidence-based approach to crime prevention and the maintenance of an ordered civil society where the vulnerable are protected.

Are we a punitive nation?

It has become an article of faith amongst some prison reformers that Britain imprisons more than its fair share of offenders compared to other European nations. To challenge this notion, Civitas released the most up-to-date figures from a United Nations survey of recorded crime. The figures indicate that Britain faces higher levels of crime than many of our neighbours and, as a consequence, can expect a larger number of prisoners. The same survey also provides an estimate of the 'punitivity' of a criminal justice system, for which England and Wales do not score highly and are significantly less punitive than the European average.

The Civitas release was discussed in the Telegraph, the Mirror, the Scotsman (one, two), the Daily Star and Public Service. It was also covered locally in the Yorkshire Post and the Belfast Telegraph.

Should we have fewer prison sentences?

The Coalition Government seems intent on using fewer custodial sentences. They argue that prison is expensive and that short custodial sentences, in particular, do nothing to tackle re-offending. However, official figures discount the substantial impact of incapacitation that prison achieves. In other words, they do not measure the extent to which crime rates are reduced by keeping prolific offenders behind bars. To address this gap in the debate, Civitas released a report, Prison, Community Sentencing and Crime, by former Home Office criminologist, Ken Pease. He argues that many offenders impose substantial economic and social costs on communities when they are released to re-offend. This makes prison, in many cases, more cost-effective than a community sentence. A summary of the report can be read here.

The report was covered on the BBC, the Sky News website, the Telegraph, the Scotsman, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Spectator, the Mirror, the Daily Star and the Sunday Times. It was also syndicated by the Press Association to over 80 local news services.

Education

Our education research seeks to achieve an objective view of standards of education in Britain. By doing so, we aim to offer an improved perspective on how best to deliver equitable and high standards of education for all.

A-level resits

This month, as public exam results were released, Anastasia de Waal challenged the use of re-sits in A-levels. They allow schools to augment their exam results without students necessarily retaining greater knowledge. Her views were discussed in the Guardian (one, two), The Times, the Economist and the Telegraph.

Vocational Qualifications

In a briefing entitled 'Practically Irrelevant', Anastasia discussed Vocationally Related Qualifications (VRQs), which are treated as equivalent to GCSEs in the Government's league tables. They allow schools to 'ramp up' their GCSE exam results on paper while failing to deliver knowledge that is either truly vocational or academic.

The report has been covered in the Telegraph (one, two, three), the Guardian (one, two), The Times (one, two), the Daily Mail (one, two), the Independent, the Sunday Express, Public Finance and the Economist, as well as on the BBC and Channel 4 websites. It has also been covered locally in the Yorkshire Post and Birmingham Post. The report has also received substantial coverage in the Times Educational Supplement (one, two, three).

Family

Peter Saunders wrote a response to Nick Clegg's speech on social mobility, arguing that parental engagement, rather than material wealth, was a decisive factor in how well children will succeed at school and later in life. His briefing was covered in the Telegraph, the Sunday Express, and on the Sky News website.

Health

The Civitas Health Unit seeks to present evidence-based ideas for creating high-quality, universal, safe and integrated health care for the United Kingdom. This month, James Gubb has commented on the personal responsibility for health agenda on the BBC. His report on Government plans to give GPs a much larger role in health commissioning has been discussed twice in Public Service (one, two).

Other issues

David Green discussed the impact of immigration on unemployment in the Telegraph, and how political correctness silenced objections to a traveller site in the Daily Express.

Anastasia de Waal gave her opinion on Cameronism in the Guardian.

Nick Cowen discussed the right to recall MPs in the Hindustan Times.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Media Info: Hidden costs of community sentences over custody exposed

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:33:28 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

26 August 2010

Media information: EMBARGO: 0001 hrs, Saturday 28 August

Report exposes hidden costs of community sentences over custody

Another Coalition policy is beginning to unravel, as independent commentators look more closely at the details. The internationally respected former Home Office criminologist, Professor Ken Pease, has shown that it will not be feasible to save money by releasing convicted prisoners from jail. According to Prison, Community Sentencing and Crime, not only does the available evidence suggest that offending will not be reduced, the Government's hope of cutting expenditure on prisons can only be achieved by ignoring the impact on victims of crime - costs that the Home Office itself has acknowledged and quantified.

Misguided assumptions

Ken Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice, and Andrew Bridges, Chief Inspector of Probation, have argued for fewer and shorter sentences on cost grounds. Sir David Latham, England and Wales' parole chief, claimed that 'society needs to realise that we can't create a world which is free of risk' while making the case for releasing more offenders on licence. Crispin Blunt, Justice Minister, suggested that locking more criminals up represents 'a failure to deal with crime and a failure to tackle re-offending'. However, such arguments fail to account for several key factors:

Existing community sentences, compared with prison sentences, have no apparent impact on re-offending rates. (p. 7)
Offenders are prevented from committing crimes against the general public while in prison. (p. 4)
The number of crimes committed by offenders is much larger than the number for which they are eventually convicted; for example one estimate suggested as many as 136 burglaries per conviction for burglary. (p. 9)
The substantial economic costs associated with each offence that have to be borne by individuals, businesses and public services. For example, a single theft (on average) is estimated to cost £1,000, a serious wounding £21,000. (p. 9)

Ken Pease, author of the report, uses Home Office estimates to show that 13,892 offences resulting in convictions could be prevented by keeping offenders on short sentences in prison for one extra month. However, this is only a small proportion of the overall offences prevented given the number of offences undetected or detected but not officially processed. (p. 10)

Pease estimates that if every successful conviction represented a conservative 5.9 offences committed by the offender, then the costs of imprisonment would be the same as the costs of crime prevented. This means that for Britain's more prolific offenders (many of whom are currently given only short sentences), it would be less costly to keep them in prison for longer periods than to give them alternative sentences in the community where they have the capacity to re-offend.

This heavily undermines assumptions that our current rate of imprisonment is a net cost to society. A significant Italian study (p. 6) suggests that periodic pardons of prisoners there cost a great deal in additional crime committed. A recent pardon is estimated to have cost some two billion euros in additional crime. Failure to use prison sentences when appropriate could lead to increases in crime which are costly both in financial terms and in denying respite from crime to the most hard-pressed communities.

Misconceptions about prison

Ken Clarke and others have implied that Britain has a punitive prison policy on a par with the Victorian era. However, as Pease notes: 'When one calculates the prison population in relation to the number of crimes recorded, the illusion of harsh sentencing disappears.' (p.3)
Andrew Bridges claims that each prisoner costs 'at least £40,000' a year. But, as the report shows, this is a grossly inflated estimate according to Government figures: '...the most recent Prisons Annual Report calculates annual cost per prisoner at £27,343.' (p. 4)

Incapacitation impact of prison ignored by official statistics

The report notes that official statistics ignore the impact of incapacitation on re-offending. Re-offending rates between community and custodial sentences are compared from the start of community sentences but from the end of custodial sentences. This means that the primary benefit of prison, the prevention of crime during an offender's sentence, is excluded from government comparisons of the costs and benefits of different sentencing regimes, biasing analyses in favour of supposedly 'less expensive' non-custodial sentences. Ken Pease explains:

'Someone convicted four times in the year after getting a community penalty is regarded as an equal success or failure as someone convicted four times in the year after being released from one year in prison, despite the fact that in the one year in prison, no convictions occurred. The one year of respite that prison gave the community is, and always has been, simply spirited out of reconviction statistics, leaving the impression that imprisonment and community sentences are equivalent purveyors of public protection.'

This means that prison sentences are not given a fair hearing during policy considerations. Their likely substantial impact on crime reduction is at best overlooked and, at worst, ignored.

Community sentences versus prison

1. Impact of community sentences on re-offending

Home Office statistics show that the type of sentence has very little effect on the likelihood of individuals re-offending.

'The reconviction figures for both community sentences and custody are almost exactly as would be predicted beforehand. In short, community sentences as currently delivered have no evident effect on rates of reconviction.' (p. 7)

This indicates that, in all likelihood, 'community sentences afford no measurable level of public protection' (p. 7) and that, until better community sentence regimes are developed, prison remains an indispensable option in reducing re-offending rates through incapacitation and deterrence.

2. Impact of prison sentences on re-offending

The report suggests a more realistic way to model the incapacitation effect of imprisonment on crime. It acknowledges that the re-conviction rate is only a small proportion of crime committed by offenders and that significantly more crime can be prevented through incapacitating likely repeat offenders. It also applies the Home Office's study of the economic and social costs of crime to estimate savings made through successful crime prevention.

Pease examines the highest re-offending group on release: offenders given sentences of less than 12 months in prison. They have an average re-conviction rate of over three crimes per annum (p. 8). He calculates that keeping this group in prison for one extra month would cost around £90 million (p.10). However, on relatively conservative assumptions, that additional cost of imprisonment will be recouped through the cost of crime prevented that otherwise blights local communities. If this high re-offending group commits 5.9 offences for every offence they are convicted for, then the economic costs have already broken even with the costs of crime prevented. In addition, communities have been spared a higher crime rate.

The true figure of re-offending is likely to be far higher, making prison a bargain rather than a burden. (p. 10)

For more information contact:

Nick Cowen at Civitas on: 020 7799 6677
David Green on 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. Its research programme receives no state funding and it has no links to any political party.

ii. Professor Ken Pease, of the Manchester Business School, is an internationally acclaimed criminologist. He has acted as a consultant to a number of international organisations including the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Customs Co-operation Council. He is also a former Parole Board member.

iii. Prison, Community Sentencing and Crime can be read here.

Media Info: Practically irrelevant: 'vocational' qualifications in schools not fit for purpose

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:49:23 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

23 August 2010

Media Briefing: EMBARGO: 0001 hrs, Tuesday 24 August 2010

Practically irrelevant: 'vocational' qualifications in schools not fit for purpose

Third-rate courses wrongly presented as 'vocational', must go

Beneath the continuing rise in GCSE results lies a troubling truth about what is happening in schools. Forming part of the forthcoming publication, Unqualified Success: Investigating the state of vocational training in the UK, research from independent think tank Civitas finds that:

Students are being led away from basic academic subjects to learn how to serve drinks in Hospitality BTEC Firsts and to identify airport facilities in Travel and Tourism OCR Nationals
Even in compulsory academic subjects e.g. science, students are being entered for lower-level 'vocational' versions
The reputation and worth of vocational training is being heavily undermined as 'practically irrelevant' qualifications are mis-sold as 'vocational'
Evidence suggests that an educational apartheid is underway as lower-income students are considerably more likely to be entered for sub-standard qualifications

'It's imperative that we put an end to the bogus versions of vocational qualifications in schools which are harming both vocational training and the education of an increasing number of students,' commented Anastasia de Waal, head of family and education and author of the report.

Rise in 'vocational' qualifications

A rise in so-called 'vocational' qualifications being taken at school is a key contributor to the ongoing rise in GCSE results. The number of vocational qualifications (VQs) taken by school-aged students has risen dramatically, the most commonly taken known as 'vocationally related qualifications' (VRQs). As Edge, the vocational training campaign group states:

'Vocationally-Related Qualifications (VRQs), such as Edexcel BTECs, City & Guilds and OCR Nationals. VRQs generally test knowledge of (or gained in) an occupational area rather than the full range of skills needed to do a particular job.'

In 2008, 311,000 VRQs were taken by 14-16 year-olds. The current system of 'equivalence' at GCSE means that one of these vocational qualifications can be worth up to four A*-C GCSEs in the league tables - greatly incentivising their uptake in schools.

Designed for weak students

Yet, despite their value in the league tables, all too often a bogus vocational training route is being used simply as a way to take lower achievers off academic subjects.

'The bottom sets and vocational qualification students correlate completely. You never encourage the top people to do vocational qualifications. To give an example there was a really bright girl last year who is a fantastic cricketer who really wanted to do BTEC Sport because of the coaching and hands on element. She wasn't allowed to because the school wanted her to do academic subjects.' English teacher, South-East London, August 2010

As a Hertfordshire school warns, the official 'equivalence' of vocational qualifications at GCSE is no guarantee for students even within the education system:

'Officially a BTEC at MVC [Melbourn Village College] could be worth 2 or 4 GCSEs depending on the number of modules taken. In reality, Sixth Form Centers [sic] do not treat it as such... As a rule of thumb halve the official number i.e. the BTEC First Diploma is officially worth 4 GCSEs but is often treated by Sixth Forms as being worth 2'. Melbourn Village College, 2010 Key Stage 4 Options Information Booklet

Worse still, James Fothergill, Head of Education and Skills at the CBI, reveals that:

'Some [VQs] may even have negative returns by flagging young people up as weak.' August 2010

Practically irrelevant

BTEC First Certificates and Diplomas and OCR Nationals are the two 'suites' of vocationally related qualifications most commonly taken in schools.

Below are the learning outcomes from a unit in the Level 2 BTEC First Certificate in Hospitality, 'Serving Food and Drink':

'The aim of this unit is for learners to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding of serving food and drink...The learners will serve food and drink to customers using a range of methods and equipment. They will also learn the presentation and personal skills, including being polite to customers, which are necessary for efficient and effective food and drink service...'

Because these qualifications are neither vocational nor academic, they are of very questionable value.

'They [students who have completed a BTEC First Certificate in Hospitality] are not equipped to perform in the industry. All that time being at school is such a huge waste of resources on all sides.'
Herbert Berger, Michelin starred chef and restaurateur

Below are the learning outcomes from a unit in the OCR Nationals Level 2 Travel and Tourism, 'Investigating Airports':

'By completing this unit candidates will develop knowledge and understanding of the key characteristics of the airport and airline sectors and the facilities and services offered. They will develop an understanding of the main health, safety and security issues and consider employment opportunities within these sectors.'

In this mandatory unit, from Level 2 BTEC First Certificate in Children's Care, Learning and Development, 'Communication with Children and Adults' students learn that:

'Communication is central to all work with children. It occurs on a constant basis in all child care settings. Communication occurs between children, between workers, between children and workers, between workers and families and between workers and other adults. When interacting with children, communication needs to be tailored to the age and development of the child.'

And the learning outcomes from a unit in OCR Nationals Level 2 Public Services 'Investigating Public Services in the UK':

'By completing this unit candidates will gain an insight into the work undertaken by the uniformed public services. It will enable the candidate to understand the range of job types available and conditions of service. Candidates will understand the entry requirements and selection process for a specified job.'

One area of work this OCR Nationals qualification purports to prepare for is the armed services - to which a serving Lieutenant responds:

'You have to ask, what is the opportunity cost of focusing so heavily on these courses? Not only maths, the sciences and IT but also the arts form a foundation of knowledge that make soldiers more employable, and therefore more deployable... I would certainly advise anyone considering a career in the military that they are better served by a solid academic foundation...'
First Lieutenant Pete Quentin, JSAA Team OIC

Impoverished curriculum

Most alarmingly, the evidence strongly suggests that poorer students are more likely to be entered for vocational courses at school. With low attainment and entry for vocational qualifications going hand in hand, the socioeconomic achievement gap implies that youngsters from deprived backgrounds are significantly more likely to forfeit academic GCSEs.

Evidencing this, research from the London School of Economics looking at 2006 GCSE and equivalent results found that students from schools with the most disadvantaged intakes were five to six times more likely to enter examinations other than full GCSEs, such as GNVQs. The GNVQ's main successor qualifications today are BTEC Firsts and OCR Nationals.

The most recent evidence of a relationship between socioeconomic intake and VQ uptake comes from data on academies, which to date have catered disproportionately for low-income students. In the last available results, 18% of mainstream maintained school entries at GCSE were in 'vocational' qualifications; in academies, by contrast, this figure is nearly double, with 34% of all academy entries in 'vocational' equivalents.

Disunited learning

Most striking, however, is the example of the academy chain which also runs private schools, the United Learning Trust. The United Learning Trust and its parent organisation the United Church Schools Trust describe themselves as 'a family of independent schools and academies'. The assumption might be that the organisation has the same educational ethos and standards for its private and state schools. However, there is a very stark difference between the curriculum provided in the UCST private schools, and the curriculum provided in the ULT state sector academies. In those schools for which results are available, whilst every single academy is doing vocational qualifications at GCSE, in some cases constituting over 65 per cent of all entries at GCSE, in the UCST private schools just one school is supplementing their GCSEs with just one 'equivalent'.

All but one of the private schools run by the organisation has a 100% GCSE entry rate - and the one exception has a 99% GCSE entry rate. When it comes to the organisation's academies, by contrast, not one has a 100% GCSE entry rate and nine out the 15 have a GCSE rate of less than 70%. Four ULT academies are doing less than 50% GCSEs.

ULT has previously faced controversy, with Ofsted serving three of its academies notices to improve. Notably, however, Ofsted has applauded rather than criticised these academies' use of vocational qualifications. For example, with reference to Sheffield Springs Academy Ofsted states:

'There is an improving picture at Key Stage 4 where students are now making satisfactory progress. The introduction of vocational courses two years ago is bearing fruit. These courses, coupled with a strong drive to improve students' performance in English and mathematics, are having a significant impact on standards and achievement at Key Stage 4.'

'We may no longer have a divided grammar/secondary modern school system, but instead an even less democratic, income-based divide appears to be developing,' commented Anastasia de Waal. 'In order to fully assess the situation, Civitas is in the process of obtaining a breakdown of all qualifications at GCSE level, by socioeconomic background.'

Forfeiting basic education

Employers in vocational work, who clearly have a vested interest in vocational training, insist that tomorrow's trainees need to acquire the basics at school.

'Pupils must have a minimum level of literacy, numeracy and science. Those things are absolutely vital for the craft areas. This is not something which schools are currently succeeding at and moving weakly performing school pupils onto non-academic courses is only exacerbating this. If the basics are not successfully tackled at primary school, then rather than siphoning weak pupils off into vocational qualifications at 14, the focus should be on securing literacy and numeracy.'
Martin McEvoy, Director, electrical engineering company Imtech Meica, August 2010

The greatest concern when it comes to vocational equivalents at GCSEs is that young people are forfeiting basic education by taking them. As the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust have acknowledged, vocational qualifications taken at 14 are a 'risk' 'particularly as they take up a large proportion of a student's KS4 programme. Each starts to prepare the student for work in a broad vocational area, when he/she could be continuing with general education for longer'.

Crucially, however, it is not just 'optional' academic subjects such as history and modern foreign languages which are being forfeited: academic foundations are also being lost in compulsory science and ICT. In these two subjects 'vocational' versions are being offered to weaker students. 'Vocational' entails watered-down 'work-related' learning such as 'investigating a crime scene', rather than gaining basic scientific knowledge and process.

As Ofsted has noted - and endorsed - replacing academic science and ICT courses with 'vocational' versions is an effective way of boosting achievement. With reference to another of the United Learning Trust academies, Accrington Academy, the inspectorate notes:

'Low attainment in science has been tackled by widening the range of science courses, including a vocational course.'

Whilst there has been much debate over the availability of triple sciences at GCSE, for many weaker students science GCSEs are not on offer at all:

'Triple science is reserved for the clever students, the middle do core science and the bottom BTEC. Core subject teachers, like the science teachers, who have to teach vocational qualifications dread it.'
English teacher, South-East London, August 2010

A scenario driven by league-table equivalence - which at least one student on the website The Student Room sees as unfair:

'The lower sets in my school also do ocr national science which they all find very easy. Does that mean their distinctions will be equal to my hard earnt [sic] A in science?'
nasira372, March 2010

Devastating vocational training - as well as opportunities

Criticism of vocational qualifications at GCSE is often shot down as 'elitist'. What in fact is elitist is a status quo in which academic subjects are reserved for the high performers and in which qualifications which bear no resemblance to true vocational training are allowed to pass as 'vocational'.

'Those defending qualifications mis-sold as vocational, in which you learn not skills but random bits of information tenuously connected to an area of work, are simply exposing their very low regard for vocational training,' commented Anastasia de Waal.

Ending 'equivalence' insufficient

The Coalition Government's remedy for the 'use' of weak qualifications to boost A*-C performance at GCSE is a plan to scrap equivalence. However, sub-standard qualifications should not be on offer in schools at all.

If the status of vocational training is to improve, the first thing which needs to be done is to axe all practically irrelevant vocational qualifications. The way that vocational training is set up at school today is devastating for the status of vocational skills. Why would a bright youngster think vocational work was something worth going into when the message at school is so clearly the reverse?

An independent commission working in tandem with employers is required to evaluate all qualifications under the auspices of 'vocational' education currently available to school-aged students.

'Ofqual, which has just re-accredited the OCR Nationals, is evidently not up to the job,' concluded Anastasia de Waal.

A breakdown of vocational qualifications by student characteristics, as well as a comprehensive list of qualifications not fit for purpose, will be published by Civitas in Unqualified Success.

Notes for Editors

i. For more information contact Anastasia de Waal on 0207 799 6677 / 07930 354 234

ii. Unqualified Success will be released in the Autumn

iii. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party. Civitas's education research seeks to take an objective view of educational standards in Britain. It aims to offer an improved perspective on how best to deliver equitable and high standards of education for all.

Civitas Policy Briefing: Will Nick Clegg escape the Social Mobility Myths?

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:21:30 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

18 August 2010

Policy Briefing

Will Nick Clegg escape the Social Mobility Myths?

By Peter Saunders

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg made a major speech today in which he identified 'promoting social mobility' as 'at the top of our social agenda'. Tony Blair made a similar commitment in 1997, just as John Major did in 1992. It is something modern leaders feel compelled to talk about. But Clegg brought a fresh take to it by emphasising the importance of parenting. Coupled with the Coalition's initiatives on tax reform and early years intervention, this should help focus attention on the real social mobility problem - the self-reproducing, welfare-dependent underclass.

Parenting

Like many politicians and commentators, Clegg thinks we have a serious social mobility problem in Britain: 'It really, really gets to me that even though ... we are a relatively affluent country, children are pretty well condemned by the circumstances of their birth.' Unusually, though, he was prepared in his speech to identify poor parenting as part of the problem. Parents, he said, are 'on the frontline' and must interest their children in education.

He's right. Unfortunately, though, he has appointed former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, as social mobility special adviser to the Government. And Milburn seems convinced the problem is institutional (in his letter accepting this latest appointment, he saw his task as 'assessing the progress each set of institutions is making to [increasing] opportunities').

A closed-shop society?

Milburn chaired a report on recruitment into the professions in 2009 (Unleashing Aspiration) in which he claimed: 'Birth, not worth, has become more and more a determinant of people's life chances.' He even described Britain as a 'closed-shop society'. He thinks institutions are blocking people.

Milburn will now report annually on how social mobility is being improved across the public sector, including the NHS and universities. This should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who knows anything about this issue, for it signals more destructive and ineffective social engineering could be on the way.

Opportunity is already extensive

Clegg is right to want every child to enjoy the opportunity to exploit their talents to the full. Nobody wants to see bright and hard-working people blocked through no fault of their own. As he said, 'Fairness means everyone having the chance to do well, irrespective of their beginnings. Fairness means that no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth. Fairness demands that what counts is not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did, but your ability and your ambition.'

But what he may not understand is that, for most people living in Britain today, this is already the situation.

Britain is not a perfect meritocracy, of course. Like in every other country, children benefit if they are born to supportive parents who care about their education and make sacrifices to help their kids excel. And not everyone has parents like that. Nevertheless, the evidence from social mobility research is that, if you are bright and hard-working, and your parents have a job (no matter what it is), you will almost certainly succeed in modern Britain:

Dividing the population into three classes (professionals, managers and administrators at the top, manual workers at the bottom, and others in-between), more than half the population of Britain ends up in a different social class from the one they were born into.
Of children in the top quarter of the ability distribution, only 1 in 20 ends up in a semi- or unskilled working class job, while two-thirds get professional-type careers, irrespective of the class of their parents.
Movement is extensive, up and down these classes. More people born to working class parents are upwardly mobile by the time they reach 30 than stay in the working class. Downward mobility is also common: more than one-third of middle class children fail to stay there.

Given these figures, it is outrageous that Milburn last year described Britain as a 'closed-shop society' where birth counts more than worth.

Why middle class children out-perform working class children

It is true that children born into middle class homes tend (on average) to out-perform children born into working class homes. A child of manual worker parents is about three times less likely to achieve a professional/managerial position than a middle class child.

But it is a mistake to assume (as several recent government reports, including Milburn's, have assumed) that this means there are unfair advantages or blockages at work. What this explanation neglects to consider is the distribution of talent.

When employers take on new employees, they try to recruit the most talented and able people. This creates a talent gradient across the occupational classes - people in the top jobs tend to be brighter on average than those at the bottom. These people usually find partners of a similar ability level (demographers call this 'assortive mating'). And between them, they tend to have children whose ability to some extent reflects their own. The result is that, in each generation, a disproportionate number of middle class children is born with the high ability needed to get the best jobs. Hence that 3:1 ratio.

Nobody likes to talk about this - least of all, politicians. When they see middle class kids outperforming working class kids, they prefer to blame 'unfair social conditions'. But the principal explanation is differences in average ability levels.

In research recently published by Civitas, half of the explained variance in the occupational destinations achieved by the 1958 birth cohort was due to just one variable - how well they scored on an IQ test when they were aged 11. This is a much better predictor of their eventual fate than the class they were born into, the type of school they attended, or any other social factor.

The fallacy of social engineering

Because politicians don't like talking about ability differences, they keep trying to tweak educational and occupational selection procedures so more working class children will clear the assessment hurdles. They have been doing this for 50 years: abolishing grammar schools, scrapping streaming, turning Polytechnics into universities, expanding higher education places, dumbing down A-levels, attacking the private schools. Given the chance, Milburn will pursue more of the same (e.g. by penalising top universities if they do not take more entrants from lower social class backgrounds).

But none of these radical reforms has changed anything: ever since the war, middle class kids have been out-performing working class kids in that same ratio of around 3:1. All that more social engineering will achieve is a further diminution of educational standards.

Focus on the welfare underclass

There is one thing governments could and should be doing, though: intensively targeting children growing up in households where nobody has a job and parents are neglectful or absent. It is here, one suspects, that the real problem lies, and it is the one gleam of hope to be taken from Clegg's speech. As he said: 'Parents are in the frontline when it comes to creating a fairer society, in the way that they raise their children.'

It is often forgotten that research on social mobility excludes children in jobless households. When economists study income mobility, they exclude people with no earned income. When sociologists study occupational mobility, they exclude people with no occupation. The real social mobility problem is almost certainly concentrated in the welfare underclass of this country - but they are not being picked up in mobility statistics.

Instead of harassing Oxford and Cambridge to change their selection criteria, or fiddling with taxes and benefits to flatten the income distribution (something the 2009 Milburn Report was very keen on), politicians should devote their energies to improving parenting for young children growing up in welfare ghettoes. For everyone else, the opportunities are already there if they have the ability and motivation to take advantage of them. Milburn must be told there is no case for more social engineering.

Policy implications

There are three key policy implications that follow from all of this:

1. Help parents in workless households to assist their pre-school and older children.

2. Require people capable of work but currently on welfare to take a job.

3. Improve schools and provide supplementary schools so that they make up for unsupportive parents.

And one thing to avoid: don't waste time on income redistribution or more quota-based social engineering. Not only are such initiatives ineffective, they are also counter-productive. When politicians repeatedly blame social conditions for outcomes, they breed fatalism by discouraging us from making the effort to overcome obstacles ourselves.

For more information contact:

Peter Saunders on: 07900 412420

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

ii. Peter Saunders is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Sussex and Professorial Research Fellow at Civitas. For further information about the author see: www.petersaunders.org.uk

iii. To buy Social Mobility Myths by Peter Saunders, click here. A press summary of the report can be read here.

Civitas Email Alert - August 2010

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:38:48 +0100

Civitas Email Alert - August 2010

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

August 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Civil Liberties

Freedom of religion and the new blasphemy

Tolerance of different beliefs combined with respect for open debate is a cornerstone of a liberal civil society. Yet this is now under threat from new religious hatred laws. Jon Gower Davies, in A New Inquisition, highlights the case of two Christians charged with 'religiously aggravated hate crime' for having an argument about their faith with a Muslim. He shows that recent prosecutions for 'hate crime' are aggressive, arbitrary and unpredictable, threatening our basic rights to free expression. They appear in many cases to be driven by sectarian interests within the criminal justice system and a fear of Islamism by the political elite. This report represents a clarion call for the defence of free speech and freedom of religious belief.

The report has received support from faith groups and secularists alike, and has been covered nationally in the Telegraph (with commentary), The Times, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Locally, the report was covered by the Yorkshire Post and the Evening Standard.

A New Inquisition can be ordered from Amazon here. Our press briefing can be read here.

More comments on civil liberties

David Green commented on the political 're-education' of a magistrate in the Daily Mail. David Conway discussed the right to a religious upbringing in the Jewish Chronicle. And Anastasia de Waal discussed the burqa in the Observer.

The Economy

'Green' energy policy - manufacturing the next economic decline

The Civitas Manufacturing Renewal Project is at the forefront of research into British industrial policy. The project supports an economic recovery based on the production of real goods and services and the creation of high quality manufacturing jobs to increase employment in the UK. Last month, Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson, tackled a prominent politically-erected barrier to growth - so-called 'green' energy policies enacted at the EU level. They threaten to strangle Britain's nascent economic recovery.

On 12th July, Civitas launched the Project's latest pamphlet, British Energy Policy and the Threat to Manufacturing Industry, at a seminar revealing the hidden costs of Britain's energy tariffs. Britain's self-harming policies are progressively forcing up electricity prices for consumers and businesses, crippling our ability to host manufacturers that use energy intensive processes (such as industrial chemical producers). Businesses currently pay a 21 per cent 'surcharge' on their electricity bills thanks to climate change policies, and that charge is estimated to reach 70 per cent by 2020.

Tragically, these policies do not even address greenhouse gas emissions effectively. Instead they encourage energy intensive production to shift from Britain to other nations, allowing the political establishment to blame developing countries for increased emissions. In fact, all developing countries are doing is making valuable goods that we refuse to produce on our own soil. The result is fewer jobs for Britain, in return for no real decrease in global emissions.

The report has been covered nationally by the Independent and the Daily Express. It was also covered by the business press, including BusinessWeek, City AM and the Economic Voice. Ruth Lea provided a commentary for ConservativeHome.

The report can be ordered from Amazon here. The press release can be read here.

Seminar - Preventing the Next Banking Collapse

On 27th July, Civitas hosted a talk by David Davis MP on how to prevent a future systemic banking collapse. Numerous approaches were discussed including dividing up high-street and investment banking, and the use of larger capital reserve requirements.

Health

Can GP's deal with commissioning?

The Civitas Health Unit seeks out evidence-based ideas for creating high-quality, universal, safe and integrated health care for the United Kingdom. On 9th July, James Gubb released a briefing describing the financial risk posed by the government's plan to hand over substantial control of commissioning of health care in the NHS - potentially as much as £80 billion of resources - from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to consortia of GPs. The bulk of proposed NHS efficiency savings rely on efficiencies driven by commissioning, yet the evidence presented suggests that these would not be made. This would mean only one thing for patients: a return to explicit rationing, either by increased waiting times or by reductions in services.

The briefing has been covered by the BBC, the Financial Times (twice), the Telegraph, The Times, the Evening Standard (and in a commentary by Simon Jenkins), the Economist, Tribune magazine and the Guardian (twice, and with comments from Patrick Butler and Polly Toynbee).

In trade press, it has been covered by Health Service Journal, Healthcare Republic, the British Medical Journal, Nursing Times, PharmaTimes, Pulse and Health Investor.

The briefing can be read here. James Gubb's commentary on the NHS White Paper released this month can be read here. He has also provided commentaries for Public Finance, The Sunday Times and Health Policy Insight.

Seminar - Objections to the NHS Market

On 14th July, the Health Unit hosted a seminar with Hamish Meldrum, Chairman of the Council of the British Medical Association. Dr Meldrum discussed why GPs are hesitant about the increased use of markets in NHS provision, as well as the Government's new policy that looks set to give GPs an expanded role as health care commissioners.

Family and Education

Academies

Academies are widely praised by all parties for supposedly driving up education standards amongst low income pupils. But how much of the improvement is real? Last month, Anastasia de Waal, Director of Family and Education at Civitas, worked with academic historian and recently elected MP, Tristram Hunt, to reveal the secret of Academies success in league tables. So-called 'vocational qualifications', such as OCR Nationals, and BTECs, are treated as equivalent to GCSEs in league tables. However, they appear neither to contain the academic rigour of traditional qualifications, nor to provide an obvious route to employment. Academies are twice as likely to use these alternative qualifications as ordinary schools. As a result, it is likely that low income pupils are being short-changed, with qualifications that make school results look good without giving pupils the benefit of an academic education.

Anastasia de Waal's research has been covered by the Telegraph (with a follow up), the Guardian, The Times, The Sunday Times, the BBC, the Times Educational Supplement, the Daily Mail, the Yorkshire Post and the New Statesman.

This provoked responses from some of those involved in providing vocational qualifications, including Chris Jones in the Guardian, and Mike Butler and Jane Scott Paul in the Times Educational Supplement. The Government has responded with a plan to make the details of Academies' exam results accessible under Freedom of Information laws (Times Educational Supplement).

Other education coverage

David Conway's book, Liberal Education and the National Curriculum, was mentioned by Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools, in a Reform Conference speech.

Family

Anastasia de Waal commented on the growth of the welfare state and workless households in the Guardian. She also discussed women's attitudes to marriage in The Sunday Times.

Law and Order

Civitas' research into criminal justice takes an evidence-based approach to crime prevention and the maintanence of an ordered civil society where the vulnerable are protected.

Should we have fewer prison sentences?

Last month, Ken Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice, suggested that Britain imprisons too many offenders. He has argued that prison does not reduce crime. In fact, it appears the new Government wishes to lower the number of prison places on grounds of cost, replacing custody with more community sentences. David Green, director of Civitas, has challenged Clarke's case in a policy note, The Potential Consequences of Kenneth Clarke's Crime Policy. He explains how a lack of appropriate prison sentences can lead to substantial increases in crime that impose large economic and social costs on the rest of the community. Releasing offenders from prison may look like a saving but, in many cases, is a false economy and amounts to a Government's dereliction of duty to protect the public.

Our challenge to the Government's approach has been covered by the Daily Mail on serveral occasions (one, two, three), the Telegraph (with commentary), The Sunday Times, The Times and MarieClaire. David Green also provided a commentary for the Telegraph.

Wasting Police Time

Norman Dennis wrote a letter to the Telegraph explaining why so few police officers are out on the beat. David Green also commented in the Daily Mail about the poor management of police time.

Other issues

Our pamphlet, Conspicious Compassion was discussed in the Guardian. Anastasia de Waal discussed Tony Blair's Liberty Medal in the Observer. David Green commented on plans to scrap the census in The Telegraph.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Online Briefing: Latest International Comparisons of Crime in OECD Countries

Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:07:19 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

03 August 2010

Media Information:
immediate release

Crime Briefing

Latest International Comparison of Crime in OECD Countries

The UN affiliated European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control has recently published the most up-to-date international comparison of crime statistics. The figures are based on the UN Survey of Crime Trends (UN-CTS). In the past the UN only published comparisons for Europe and North America, but the latest report uses police-recorded crime for 2006 for many additional countries. However, because there are significant problems of comparability, Civitas has selected only those nations that belong to the OECD. Its members are more likely to have reliable national statistics agencies and to be accustomed to standardising information. It is frustrating that international comparisons are so far behind, but ironing out inconsistencies to ensure that we really are comparing 'like with like' simply takes a long time.

We know from comparisons with other EU members that crime in England and Wales is very high. In 2004 the European Union's Crime and Safety Survey looked at 18 countries and found that the UK was a 'crime hotspot', along with Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark. And in 2007 the latest Eurostat figures for the 27 EU members found that England and Wales had the third worst crime rate.

How does our crime rate compare?

But how do we compare with developed countries inside and outside Europe? The UN comparisons are based on six of the most serious crimes: intentional homicide, rape, robbery, major assault, burglary and car theft.

As the charts show, England and Wales were above average for rape, robbery, burglary and car theft and below average for intentional homicide and 'major assault':

14th out of 34 countries for homicide.
8th out of 34 for rape.
6th out of 34 for robbery.
17th out of 28 for major assault.
5th out of 34 for burglary.
7th out of 33 for car theft.

Compared with our peers, the report shows that we are a high-crime society.

Are we a punitive society?

The report also allows us to test the theory that our system is especially punitive, a claim recently made by the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke. The report calculates a 'punitivity ratio' by contrasting the number of people convicted in a year per 100,000 population with the number of prisoners in jail as a result of a court sentence per 100,000 population. (That is, the figure includes only prisoners sentenced to jail, not those on remand; and it includes prisoners sentenced in earlier years to long terms of imprisonment.)

If a nation handed down prison sentences to a high proportion of those found guilty, or gave long sentences to those given custody, then it would have a high 'punitivity ratio'.

However, the score for England and Wales, contrary to the claims of Kenneth Clarke, is low. The claim that our criminal-justice policies are punitive is not, therefore, supported by the best available evidence.

The UN report is available online here. Illustrative graphs and tables for this report are available from Civitas here.

For more information contact:

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

Media Information - Blasphemy is back!

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:12:02 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

15 July 2010

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Monday 19 July 2010

Blasphemy is back!

'Hate' legislation threatens freedom of speech

Hate legislation removes an increasing quantity of matters traditionally dealt with in civil society to the domain of the state and the courts. In a new report from the independent think tank Civitas, A New Inquisition: religious persecution in Britain today, Jon Gower Davies, formerly the Head of Religious Studies at Newcastle University, reveals the bizarre and oppressive nature of judicial attempts to prosecute individuals for 'religious hatred' - this new legal concept has resulted in some singularly worrying court cases.

Blasphemy Law by the Backdoor

The Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically augmented guise. Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing 'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act. Jon Davies argues that the growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion.

'Hatred' in the legal sphere

Whilst the total number of racial and religious hate crimes fell from 13,201 in 2006-7 to 11,845 in 2008-9, the volume of hate legislation has rapidly expanded. There are now more than 35 Acts of Parliament, 52 Statutory Instruments, 13 Codes of Practice, 3 Codes of Guidance and 16 European Commission Directives which bear on 'discrimination'. And most recently, the Single Equality Act was passed by Parliament in April 2010. Yet legal definitions of 'hatred' are elusive. A government action plan states:

'A (religious) hate crime is a criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a persons religion or perceived religion.' (p.10)

In addition, 'hatred' is not only presented as an offence on its own account, but can also be seen as something which aggravates ordinary public order offences. When an ordinary offence is aggravated by 'hatred' based on race, religion, gender, or age, then the sentence too is 'aggravated' (i.e. increased).

Judges become theologians!

Jon Davies argues that these 'definitions' are without substance, and inevitably result in confusion and silliness in their application. The attempt to define a 'hate Incident' in terms of 'hostility' results in perilous imprecision: it is not possible to know when individuals have been hated - or, indeed, when they have themselves been hating! - and for how long and to what depth and to what effect. The essence of the criminal justice system should be justice and impartiality, but turning religious hatred into a criminal offence turns police, the Crown Prosecution Service and judges into surrogate theologians - a kind of theocracy (an uncomfortable theocracy at that) by the backdoor.

'Are judges, even judges giving the "right" verdict, so qualified in theology that they feel able to offer doctrinal guidance? Is the Crown Prosecution Service so prudent in its understanding of "religious hatred" that it should be free, with no penalty for error, to mobilise the power and resources of the state against ordinary citizens who make comments about religion?' (p.2)

Hateful hospitality

To demonstrate the oppressive oddity of judicial attempts to regulate religious hatred, Jon Davies describes the 2009 case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, owners of the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool. Following a discussion between the Vogelenzangs and a guest at their hotel, Mrs Erica Tazi, about the respective merits of her religion (Islam) and theirs (Christianity), Mrs Tazi made a formal complaint to the Merseyside police about what she said were offensive remarks made by the Vogelenzangs. They were subject to a grim and prolonged ordeal when they were accused of a religiously aggravated hate crime. For several months they were pursued by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service! The Vogelenzangs were prosecuted contrary to the evidence; when the full story came to court, it transpired that a Muslim doctor had also been eating breakfast in the hotel and found nothing objectionable about the couple's conduct. Jon Davies calls the case:

'...a hackle-raising demonstration of disquieting changes in the relationship between our history, the citizen, his or her religion, his or her civil society and the state'. (p.2)

He argues that hate legislation has demolished several of the traditional defences of the citizen. For example, the 'burden of proof' is effectively reversed under section 66(5) of the Equality Act (2006), because whilst by long-established practice the Vogelenzangs should have been regarded as innocent until proven guilty:

'[There was a] public presumption of culpability... the local NHS authority [which provided 80 per cent of the Bounty House income] cancelled their bookings'. (p.14)

There is evidence of at best arbitrary, at worst biased, application of the law. In a recent case a Muslim man defaced a war memorial (a Christian and national symbol) in Burton upon Trent. He sprayed the words 'Islam will dominate the world-Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' across the plinth.

'He was prosecuted for criminal damage, that is for neither a racially nor a religiously aggravated offence.' (pxii)

Ultimately, the exercise of hate legislation seems to create the very atmosphere it was designed to prevent - hatred:

'The hate laws are criminal laws operating under the police and the CPS; and their parading of assorted 'miscreants' through the degradation ceremonies of the courts, will create more abuse and hatred.' (p18)

A danger to freedom of speech

One of the great triumphs of liberalism has been to separate the discovery of factual truth from the assertion of religious doctrine. And yet, when Judge Richard Clancy dismissed the case against the Vogelenzangs in December 2009, he commented that it might be best for individuals not to engage in discussions about religion! As a result:

'It becomes "wise" to "be careful", to restrict the compass of what we say about what we believe, or do not believe, or about what others believe or do not or should not believe, and to turn what were once vigorous public conversations into a frightened, if safe, if amiable and fundamentally humourless chat about small and dwindling things.' (p.49)

Throughout most of human history the suppression of unwelcome opinions has been the norm. Therefore, open societies in which we try to settle our differences without violence have been a great human achievement. For some centuries we in this country have been accustomed to dealing with such matters 'amongst ourselves', in a public sphere regulated by our own good sense and law legitimised by general consent and softened by a live-and-let-live ethos. In contrast to such 'good sense', for example, 23 year-old Tauriq Khalid, was charged by Burnley Police in 2009 after he made a two-fingered gestures at a BNP demonstration and at its leader Mr Nicholas Griffin. Davies comments:

'[R]arely would anyone consider that 'two fingers' and a brusque invitation to "f--- off out of Burnley" indicated affection: but to take a man to court for such an attitude?' (p5)

Because freedom of speech is the prevailing view in Britain, we are not as alert to the risk of its overthrow as we should be. The freedom to speak our minds without fear or favour is worth fighting for. In A New Inquisition, Jon Davies shows why the liberal majority needs to reassert the convention that the law should be used not as a weapon to suppress unpopular opinions, but rather as the protector of free speech.

For more information contact:

Jon Gower Davies on: 0191 284 7297 or 0796 901 5286.

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

ii. Jon Gower Davies retired from the University of Newcastle ten years ago. He lectured, first, in the Social Studies Department, and then in the Department of Religious Studies, of which he was Head. For twenty years he was a Labour Councillor on Newcastle City Council. He is the author and editor of books and articles on a wide range of topics, including Bonfires on the Ice: the multicultural harrying of Britain and In Search of the Moderate Muslim published by the Social Affairs Unit; and on attitudes to death and dying in the ancient religions of the world, published by Routledge.

iii. To read A New Inquisition by Jon Davies, click here.

Commentary on NHS White Paper

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:40:24 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Civitas Commentary on NHS White Paper

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

July 2010

Media information: Immediate release, 12 July 2010

Commentary on NHS White Paper

The coalition government today released its White Paper on the NHS. James Gubb, director of the health unit at independent social policy think-tank Civitas said:

�The Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, should be congratulated on moves to introduce greater competition in the NHS by granting extra freedoms to foundation trusts, expanding choice for patients and supporting a genuine �social market� through the introduction of meaningful competition law.

Recent evidence on the impact of the competition that already exists in the NHS suggests this is the right course of action to drive value in tight financial times.

However, moves to transfer responsibility for commissioning from PCTs to GPs universally and at such a rapid pace must be cause for concern.

What is proposed represents a huge structural change. The reality is that considerable resources will need to be devoted to the restructuring by: creating new organisations; laying people off in PCTs and recruiting new staff at GP consortia; working out the right blend of risk and reward for GP consortia; creating new accountability frameworks; and implementing new formulas for distributing resources.

All will take time, distract attention, and carry significant risks if got wrong. Evidence from past restructuring of commissioning in the NHS in 2006 suggests a dip in performance of at least one year is likely, which would be ruinous for the NHS�s goal of making �20 billion efficiency savings by 2014.

It is also unlikely that it will cut management costs by 45%; with potentially as many as 500 commissioning organisations replacing 152, transaction costs, for one, will almost certainly increase. Many people, too, will end up re-applying for their old jobs in the new structures.

To complement moves on the provider side, instead of effectively eradicating PCTs, the coalition government should focus attention on developing PCT�s commissioning skills and getting behind them as vigorous, impartial, purchasers of care, able to exert pressure on providers to improve, or to switch services where necessary to new innovative ones (NHS or non-NHS) without fear of backlash. The goal of increasing clinical involvement in commissioning is vital to this, but would be better achieved working through existing structures.�

For more information contact James Gubb on: 020 7799 6677 / 079 3024 3570

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party. Civitas's health policy research seeks to take an objective view of health care in Britain. It aims to offer an improved perspective on how best to deliver equitable and high standards of health care for all.

ii. Recent evidence on the impact of competition between providers in the NHS suggests it has contributed to: improved managerial quality; reduced inequalities in access (in terms of waiting times); improved quality as measured by 30-day in hospital mortality from acute myocardial infarction; and reduced length-of-stay.

iii. Over the weekend Civitas released a study looking at the risks associated with structural change in the NHS. It showed that the last restructuring of commissioning, the merging of PCTs in 2006, led to an average one-year drop in performance in PCTs that were merged and that, again on average, it took three-years for those that were merged to catch up with the levels of those that were not. It can be found here: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/download/civitas_data_briefing_gpcommissioning.pdf.
The raw data can be accessed at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/download/PCTperformance_final.xls.
The press release can be found at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs_GPcommissioning.php

Lansley�s plans could set the NHS back three years

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 11:00:46 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Lansley's plans could set the NHS back three years

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

July 2010

Media information: EMBARGO: 0001hrs Saturday 10 July 2010

Lansley's plans could set the NHS back three years

Moves to transfer commissioning responsibility to GPs could cost the NHS its £20 billion efficiency savings target, and worse

The coalition government's White Paper on the NHS is due to be published next week. It is widely expected to outline plans to hand control of as much as £80 billion of resources in the NHS from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) to consortia of GPs.

Analysis by the independent think tank Civitas suggests such moves are likely to:

Lead to at least a one year dip in performance in the NHS in absolute terms.

Set the NHS back at least three years relative to what could be achieved without any structural change.

James Gubb, director of the health unit at Civitas, said, 'The NHS is facing the most difficult financial times in its history. Now is not the time for ripping up internal structures yet again on scant evidence base, but for focusing minds on the task ahead and really getting behind the difficult decisions PCTs, as commissioners, will have to make.'

The dangers of structural change

To predict what might happen with the restructuring of commissioning proposed by the Secretary of State for Health, researchers at Civitas analysed the impact of the last reconfiguration of commissioning on performance.

This occurred in 2006 when the number of PCTs was reduced in size from 302 to 152, through merging 222 PCTs and leaving 80 PCTs unchanged - a comparatively minor change compared with that now on the table.

Looking at the health watchdog, the Healthcare Commission's, Annual Health Check ratings of PCTs on 'quality of services' and 'use of resources' pre-and post-mergers, the following effects were observed:

An absolute drop in performance on 'quality of service' and 'use of resources' lasting at least one year in PCTs that were merged.

Where PCTs were merged in 2006 'quality of services' dropped sharply the year after, with the percentage of merged PCTs rated 'good' or 'excellent' falling from 34% in 2005/06 to 12% in 2006/07. The percentage of merged PCTs rated 'good' or 'excellent' on 'use of resources' also fell, from 5% to 4%.

This compares with significantly improved performance in the 80 PCTs that were not merged. In terms of 'use of resources', the number of PCTs that were not merged rated 'good' or 'excellent' jumped from 15% to 34% between 2005/06 and 2006/07. In terms of 'quality of services', the number rated 'good' or 'excellent' improved from 35% to 39%.

A period of three years before the relative performance of PCTs that were merged reached pre-merger (i.e. 2005/06) levels against those that were not.

Ultimately, merged PCTs did subsequently catch-up with those that were not on 'quality of services', but it took three years to do so. As of 2008/09, merged PCTs remained further behind PCTs that were not merged on 'use of resources' than they were in 2005/06.

These timeframes are consistent with other evidence on central government restructuring and hospital mergers.

A warning from Mid Staffordshire

In 2006, South Staffordshire PCT was formed from the merger of five PCTs: Burntwood, Lichfield & Tamworth, Cannock Chase, East Staffordshire and South Western Staffordshire PCTs.

Of the failure of South Staffordshire PCT to provide proper oversight of quality of care at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, where up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily, the Francis Inquiry reported: 'several comments criticise the national reorganisation of PCTs in 2006/07, along with the resultant lack of capacity and organisational memory'.

The written submission from Cure the NHS said the following:

'...the first function of a newly reconfigured organisation should be to take stock of the services that it was providing: to understand what it was commissioning and how well this was being delivered. This does not seem to have happened at the PCT.'

The potential impact of Lansley's plans

The restructuring of commissioning currently proposed by government is widely seen by policy experts as a major and radical change. Kieran Walshe, professor of health policy at Manchester Business School, recently told the Financial Times:

"This has to be the biggest reorganisation of the NHS since 1974. Apart from the existing NHS foundation trusts, there is very little of the existing architecture that will be left unchanged. This is a massive structural upheaval, and it looks to be very expensive, and very risky to do it so quickly."

At the same time the NHS is facing the most austere time in its history. King's Fund/IFS have estimated that, with near-static real-term increases in funding, to do little more than maintain existing standards of care (in the face of inflation and rising demand) the NHS will have to get in the region of 4-6 per cent more for its money year-on-year over the next five years.

Andrew Lansley has reaffirmed the previous government's commitment to driving £20 billion's worth of efficiency savings in the NHS by 2014.

Yet, if the kind of performance drop seen with the merging of PCTs in 2006 - a comparatively minor change - is repeated with more fundamental changes proposed by government, the NHS's efforts could be set back by at least three years. The bulk of proposed £20 billion NHS efficiency savings rely on efficiencies driven by commissioning: the evidence presented suggests that these will not be made.

Evidence suggesting GPs will be more effective at commissioning than PCTs is weak

The only possible justification for the restructuring is that GPs will be universally and significantly better at commissioning than PCTs. The evidence does not support this.

The bulk of evidence comes from GP fundholding in the 1990s. This suggests:

GP fundholding was associated with improvements in speed, access and responsiveness of secondary care, reductions in waiting times, slight reductions in referral rates and costs, and widening the range of available services.

A review by the King's Fund think tank suggested GP fundholding was 'the most promising' of the 1990s market-based reforms.

However:

GP fundholding failed to reduce costs as much as expected. Little effect on the rate of innovation was observed and fundholding was associated with lower patient satisfaction with services. Little research was carried out on the impact of fundholding on health outcomes.

GP fundholders were self-selected volunteers for the programme, tending to be well-organised practices in middle-class areas, enthusiastic about taking on commissioning budgets. There is no evidence to draw on to support GPs across the country taking on commissioning as consortia, as is proposed by the government.

The current incarnation of GP commissioning, practice-based commissioning, is proving less effective. In a recent survey of practice-based commissioners by the Department of Health, 41% of respondents indicated that practice-based commissioning has not influenced (i.e. neither 'a great deal' nor 'a fair amount') the clinical practice of the GP practices within their group.

James Gubb said: 'Ruling out the fiscally implausible possibility of significant extra spending on the NHS, past evidence on restructuring in the NHS suggests any slight blip in Lansley's plans will mean one thing for patients: a return to rationing, either by waiting or by reductions in services'.

For more information contact James Gubb on: 020 7799 6677 / 079 3024 3570

Notes for Editors

ii. The full study can be accessed at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/download/civitas_data_briefing_gpcommissioning.pdf

iii. The raw data can be accessed at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/download/PCTperformance_final.xls

Civitas Media Information: Climate change policies risk major damage to the economic recovery

Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:18:52 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

8 July 2010

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Monday 12 July 2010

Climate change policies risk major damage to the economic recovery

A preoccupation with 'green' energy policies at any cost undermines the competitiveness of manufacturing industry

A newly published report from the independent think tank Civitas reveals that the increased costs of energy arising from 'green' energy policies are set to increase significantly. Increased costs will hurt manufacturing at a time when much depends on the sector to generate the economic growth the country needs, and to rebalance the economy.

In British Energy Policy And The Threat To Manufacturing Industry, Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson examine the impact of the recent Labour Government's policy on energy prices. They argue that Labour's aim to reduce carbon emissions and increase the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, significantly increased costs for energy consumers. Lea and Nicholson's analysis provides a timely warning because under the new Coalition Government, energy policy could be as damaging to manufacturing industry as it was under Labour.

Business electricity bills already incur a 21% 'surcharge' because of 'green' commitments

Lea and Nicholson cite evidence that the recent Labour Government's climate change strategy hiked up electricity bills. For example, BERR estimated in 2008 that the 'surcharge' on electricity prices, attributable to climate-change policies, amounted to an extra 14% for domestic users and 21% for business. Furthermore, DECC's The Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) suggested that these surcharges could be as high as 33% and 70% by 2020 respectively.

Lea and Nicholson highlight the two major legislative commitments responsible:

1. The Climate Change Act (2008) - including a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

2. The EU's Renewables Directive (2008) - under which the UK must meet 15% of its final energy consumption through renewable sources by 2020.

Britain will bear a greater cost than other countries

This country is particularly badly placed for such commitments. First, Britain is starting with a very modest renewables industry, so the burden of the EU's Renewables Directive will be substantial:

'The proportion of renewables to total energy consumption in 2005 was just 1.3%, compared with an EU27 average of 8.5%.' (p.6)

Secondly, even without the extra costs associated with climate change policies that are due to be imposed, Lea and Nicholson argue, Britain's industrial electricity prices already tend to be amongst the highest of any major economy. This puts British business and, in particular, energy intensive users at a cost and international competitiveness disadvantage. Moreover, given the expected increases in the climate change surcharges, Britain's cost disadvantage will almost certainly increase, thus undermining competitiveness further.

'Such extra costs would inevitably tilt the balance for many businesses and render them unviable in Britain.' (p.10)

Energy intensive industries to be hardest hit
- with a domino effect on downstream industries

Energy intensive users, including steel, glass and ceramics, bulk chemicals, industrial gases and cement, are especially vulnerable. These are important contributors to GDP not only in their own right but also because of their inter-dependent relationship with 'downstream' industries. As Jeremy Nicholson comments:

'Britain is already losing energy intensive businesses because of the lack of competitiveness... There is no doubt that high energy prices have already been a factor behind industry closures.' (pp.10-11)

Lea and Nicholson outline specific examples of the layers of 'fall out' from such closures - for example, the INEOS Chlor plant in Cheshire manufactures chlorine and caustic soda which are vital inputs to a wide-range of 'downstream' industries including disinfectants, plastics, pharmaceuticals, soaps and detergents.

'Rather than import the basic chemicals, many of the downstream businesses would migrate to countries where they were still domestically produced for reasons of reliability of supply and transport costs.' (p.13)

Policy must help rather than hinder

As the economy struggles to emerge from the economic crisis of 2008-2009, it is widely assumed that the manufacturing sector will contribute positively to the general recovery and the rebalancing of the economy. Under these circumstances, the report calls on the new Coalition Government to ensure that manufacturing industries are supported by policies that help rather than hinder their competitiveness to enable economic growth and therefore lead to fewer public spending cuts. According to Ruth Lea:

"The economy desperately needs a competitive and thriving manufacturing sector if it is to prosper. Competitive energy prices are vital to the success of manufacturers, especially energy intensive users. Government energy policies are, however, remorselessly driving up energy costs thus risking the 'migration' of manufacturing plants to economies where the costs are lower."

For more information contact:

Ruth Lea on: 07800 608674

Jeremy Nicholson on: 07785 280568

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding and has no links to any political party.

ii. Ruth Lea is a Non-Executive Director and Economic Advisor to the Arbuthnot Banking Group. She writes for various publications on economic matters and is a well-known media commentator on matters relating to business and the economy.

iii. Jeremy Nicholson is Director of the Energy Intensive Users Group. He is a Board member of the International Federation of Industrial Consumers, a member of Ofgem's Environmental Advisory Group, the government's Business Energy Forum, and a Fellow of the Energy Institute.

iv. To read British Energy Policy And The Threat To Manufacturing Industry by Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson, click here.

Civitas Crime Policy Note

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:32:04 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

30 June 2010

CIVITAS POLICY NOTE

The Potential Consequences of Kenneth Clarke's Crime Policy

If Home Secretaries are judged by the amount of crime during their time in office then Kenneth Clarke must rank as the worst Home Secretary ever. He held the office from April 1992 to May 1993 when crime was higher than it had ever been before and has ever been since. It started to fall only when Clarke's policies were reversed by Michael Howard.

As Justice Secretary he now runs prisons, and from his comments this week he has learnt little from his time at the Home Office in the 1990s. He now argues for reducing the prison population by lowering the number of offenders sentenced to prison and reducing long sentences. Why, he asks, is the prison population twice what it was when he was last at the Home Office in 1993?

His time at the Home Office coincided with the highest police-recorded crime figures ever, and the increase was in large measure the result of the policies he and his predecessors pursued. Repeat cautions were preferred to custody, the 1991 Criminal Justice Act required judges to give less weight to previous convictions when sentencing criminals, car theft had been downgraded in importance and early release at the half-way stage of sentences under four years was made automatic. Despite huge increases in crime the average prison population was reduced from nearly 50,000 in 1988 to 44,500 in 1993. The impact of Michael Howard's policy of 'prison works' was not felt until the 1994 figures showed an increase to 48,800.

Recorded crime surged by over 20% during the early 1990s, from 4.544 million crimes in 1990 to 5.592 million in 1992. It took until 1997 to get it back down to 4.598 million by putting an additional 15,000 career criminals behind bars.

Releasing criminals and cutting the prisons budget would be a false economy

If Mr Osborne is tempted by Mr Clarke's offer to cut the prison budget, he should realise that cutting the £2.2 billion cost of the prison service would be a false economy. From time to time the Home Office has made estimates of the total social and economic costs of crime, including the insurance and security measures we have to pay for, the cost of personal injuries and lost property, and the additional costs to the criminal justice system of allowing repeat criminals the freedom to carry on offending.

What would be the cost of releasing a criminal from jail who would otherwise be committing offences. The total social and economic cost of crimes against individuals and households in 2003-04 was £36.2 billion and there were 12.168 million crimes against individuals and households, an average cost of £2,972 per crime.

A Home Office survey of offenders being admitted to prison in 2000 found that they committed on average 140 crimes per year. If the average cost of each crime was £2,900 then the total annual cost would be £406,000. Compared with the cost of prison the saving is vast. The annual cost of a prison place in 2008-09 according to the prison service annual report was £29,561. But £406,000 is the cost to society as a whole. What about the cost to the Government?

20% of the total social and economic cost was incurred by the criminal justice system, £7.1 billion, including the cost of policing and processing and re-processing offenders through the courts. The average cost per crime just counting those costs would be £594, which means that the annual cost to the criminal justice system of an offender carrying out 140 crimes per year would be £83,200.

This means that, if Kenneth Clarke releases criminals he will be adding to the Home Office bill (for the police) and his own department's bill (for the courts). According to Labour's Social Exclusion Unit, processing one criminal on one occasion in a crown court (£30,500) costs more than keeping him in prison for a year (£29,600).

Much of the health care cost in patching up people who have been harmed by criminals would also fall on the NHS, estimated at another 7% by the Home Office, a total annual cost of £2.4 billion - on its own more than the total cost of the prison service (£2.2 billion).

Another 12% was the result of lost output, £4.3 billion. If criminals are released and crime increases the lost output would reduce tax revenues.

We are a high-crime society

Kenneth Clark recently said that there was exaggerated fear of crime. But, the simple fact is that crime is historically high. In 1950 there were just over 1,000 crimes per 100,000 population; in 1992, the post-war peak, there were nearly 11,000; and in 2008-09 about 8,500. Even after significant falls, crime is well over eight times what it was in 1950. Crime in England and Wales is also high compared with other European countries. In 2004 the European Union's Crime and Safety Survey looked at 18 countries and found that the UK was a 'crime hotspot', along with Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark. And in 2007 the latest Eurostat figures for the 27 EU members, England and Wales had the third worst crime rate.

Contrary to elite claims, we are not a punitive society

Critics of prison often claim that the British people are punitive, an opinion usually supported by showing that we have more offenders in prison per 100,000 population than other developed countries. The EU average is 122 and the figure for England and Wales is 147. However, the more significant comparison is between the prison population and the number of crimes. If a nation has a large amount of crime it should have a higher proportion of people in jail, if its criminal justice system is working effectively. The EU average (27 countries) in 2007 was 21 prisoners per 1,000 crimes. The figure for England and Wales was lower at 16. In fact 18 out of the 27 countries had higher rates of imprisonment.

Far from being vindictive, Government figures show that the most persistent offenders are not jailed. In 2008 criminals who had 15 or more previous convictions or cautions were given custody in only 40% of cases when they were convicted of a serious (indictable) crime. Robbery is one of the most serious violent crimes and includes street mugging. The custody rate has fallen since 1997, when it was 72%. In 2008 it was only 60%.

Prison works

Crime has fallen because of the increased use of prison since 1993, when the prison population was 45,600. By 1997 the Conservatives had increased it to 62,000 - up 36%. Labour continued the policy and when Lord Carter reviewed Blair's policy in 2003 he concluded that crime would 'fall dramatically' if persistent offenders were jailed. Labour continued to increase the prison population to nearly 85,000 when it left office. Based on the estimate of 140 crimes per year, the incarceration of an additional 23,000 offenders since 1997 would have saved over 3.2 million crimes.

Short sentences don't reduce offending because they should be long sentences

The Lib-Dems also disapprove of short sentences and want them replaced by community sentences. They disregard the fact that short sentence do not reduce crime because criminals who deserve long sentences are only being given short ones. Even when Parliament has stipulated a minimum sentence, shorter terms are given. Since 2000 the law has required that on a third or subsequent conviction for household burglary an offender should receive a minimum of three years. In 2008, under 20% were given that sentence. The others were given shorter custodial sentences and over 16% were not given custody at all.

The most rigorous community sentences have failed to reduce offending

The most rigorous community sentence has been the Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP). In October 2005 the final report was published and found that 91% of offenders who had taken part in ISSP were reconvicted within the two-year follow up. The failure of the scheme has been confirmed by an independent study carried out by a team from the University of Portsmouth, which included a former senior Home Office official. The authors concluded that ISSP had not provided adequate surveillance to ensure public protection; not been rigorously enforced; not had a positive effect on offenders' attitudes; not provided supervision appropriate to offenders' ages; not improved offenders' life chances; not provided strong boundaries; not brought structure into young offenders' lives; and not separated offenders from damaging environments or peers. Between 2001 and 2007 ISSP cost £77m, which means it was more costly than other community sentences and less effective.

The therapeutic state

Kenneth Clarke seems to be in denial about the simplest of facts. If you lock up a criminal who would otherwise be thieving, you cut crime. If you lock up the most prolific offenders, namely the 100,000 who are thought to commit half of all crime, you cut crime dramatically. Above all, the Coalition does not accept the fundamental liberal precept that we should be seen as free individuals, each responsible for our own actions. Criminals are not patients being treated by the 'therapeutic state', they are free people who made the wrong choice. Ironically the Lib-Dems are the main obstacle to a genuinely liberal approach based on personal responsibility, an approach that should be the heart of policy on crime as well as the renewal of civil society implied by the Big-Society agenda. The big danger for the Coalition Government is that adopting Lib-Dem policies will lead to an increase in crime when we already have enough problems to cope with.

Notes for editors

This briefing has been prepared by David Green, Director of Civitas.

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas, 55 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL

Civitas Email Update - June 2010

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:52:10 +0100

Civitas Email Alert - June 2010

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

June 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Latest Publications

Social Mobility Myths by Peter Saunders (released Tuesday 01 June 2010).

In Social Mobility Myths, Peter Saunders examines the evidence on social mobility in Britain and he exposes four 'social mobility myths' which distort debate and policy. According to Saunders, most politicians across all parties accept these myths, and therefore commonly express their sense of outrage that a class-ridden, closed society is becoming even more class-ridden and even more closed. Saunders sets out to convince the political class that much of what they believe (or say they believe) about social mobility in Britain is either false or more complicated than they think. The bottom line is: we cannot hope to develop good policies if we ignore the key influence on the phenomenon we are hoping to change.

To buy the publication, click here.

Coverage included:

Events

Civitas hosted a number of seminars in June. Professor Larry Mead discussed prospects for welfare reform and the advantages of viewing work as a civic duty beyond its economic benefits. Dr Paul Woolley spoke on capital markets, and ways to prevent market irregularities that generate social disadvantages. And Daniel Hannan MEP discussed prospects for direct democracy, arguing that the use of open primaries, referenda, and enabling electorates to recall MPs are fundamental to reinvigorate British democracy. For a link to the Direct Democracy movement website, please click here.

Comment from Civitas includes:

UK Economy:

Law and Order:

Health:

Education:

Family:

Further comments:

2010 Election Summaries on a number of topics have been available on our website since April (in the run up to the UK General Election). The briefings can be accessed here.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas Media Information - Britain IS socially mobile

Fri, 28 May 2010 08:14:58 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

28 May 2010

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01 Tuesday 01 June 2010

Britain IS socially mobile

New report slams 'social mobility myths'

Politicians from all parties say they are committed to the ideal of a 'meritocratic' society - they all want talented and hard-working people to succeed in life, irrespective of their social background. However, a new report from the independent think tank Civitas argues that many politicians are badly informed about the facts of social mobility in modern Britain. And because they don't know the facts, they support policies which are at best unnecessary, and at worst deeply damaging.

In Social Mobility Myths, Peter Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Sussex, sets out to convince the political class that much of what they believe (or say they believe) about social mobility in Britain is either false or more complicated than they think.

The bottom line is: we cannot hope to develop good policies if we ignore the key influence on the phenomenon we are hoping to change.

The four 'myths'

Examining the evidence on social mobility in Britain, Saunders exposes four 'social mobility myths' which distort debate and policy:

1. The myth that Britain is 'a closed shop society' in which life chances are heavily shaped by the class you are born into;

2. The myth that social mobility is getting worse, or has even 'ground to a halt';

3. The myth that differences of ability between individuals are irrelevant in explaining the differential rates of success they achieve;

4. The myth that governments can increase mobility by top-down engineering of the education system and forcing more income redistribution.

According to Saunders, most politicians across all parties accept these myths. Politicians commonly express their sense of outrage that a class-ridden, closed society is becoming even more class-ridden and even more closed.

Challenging the 'myths'

Flying in the face of sociological orthodoxy, Saunders argues that modern Britain is a much more open and meritocratic society than most of us realise and that talent and motivation are the key drivers of success and achievement.

Social mobility is common in Britain:

Dividing the working population into three social classes (professional-managerial, intermediate, and 'working'), more than half of us are in a different class than the one we were born into.
Britain does not compare unfavourably with other countries:
Movement between classes in Britain is roughly the same as elsewhere in the western world. Claims by some economists that income mobility is lower here than elsewhere rest on very shaky statistics and should be rejected.
Social mobility has not been falling:
At least 3 different studies show social fluidity is still increasing (especially for women), and almost all research shows it has not fallen. The widely-publicised claim that mobility has fallen rests on income data which appear to be flawed. A recent claim by the Conservative Party that social mobility has 'ground to a halt' is absurd.
Intelligence matters!
It is true that children born to middle class parents tend to succeed in greater numbers than those born to working class parents, but we have to take account of cognitive ability when explaining this. Bright people tend to become middle class, and they often have bright kids who themselves also become middle class. Our overall social mobility rates are roughly what they should be in a meritocracy. Recent government reports on social mobility persistently ignore ability differentials.
Most bright, working class children succeed:
If we look at all children in the top quarter of the ability range, 65% of them end up in professional/managerial jobs and only 5% end up in manual working class jobs. Bright working class children nearly always rise up the class system (although dull middle class children do not always fall down it).
Ability trumps class:
In models predicting occupational status in adulthood, the cognitive ability of the child at age 11 accounts for half of all the variance explained. Ability is well over twice as important as class origins, three times more powerful than the degree of interest parents show in their child's schooling, and five times more powerful than parents' level of education or the aspirations which parents have for their children. Talent and hard work are the two key factors in class placement.

Saunders comments that, "Most politicians assume that social mobility in Britain is very limited, when it is not. They think that class origins count much more than personal effort and talent in shaping people's destinies, but this simply isn't true."

Saunders criticises policies recommended in recent government reviews of social mobility, including the 2008 Cabinet Office report, Getting On, Getting Ahead, Alan Milburn's 2009 report on 'fair access to the professions', and Harriet Harman's National Equality Panel report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK, published in January this year. He attacks:

the preoccupation with expanding entry into higher education, even at the expense of academic standards;
the 'grade inflation' unleashed by pushing ever-increasing numbers of pupils through GCSEs and A-levels;
the attempt by government to create more middle class jobs (mainly by expanding the size of the public sector);
moves towards 'positive discrimination' in university selection designed to make it harder for bright, middle class applicants to get accepted;
the fallacious belief that flattening the income distribution through higher taxes and more generous welfare benefits will promote mobility.

Of all current initiatives, the only one that is probably worthwhile is the attempt to improve the quality of parenting among low income, welfare parents. According to Saunders:

"Politicians have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that Britain is a closed society. Labour radicals want to deny social fluidity exists because this allows them to attack the supposed unfairness of the British class system. Conservatives want to deny it, because they can then attack the [previous] government's record in promoting opportunity. Both sides have closed their eyes and ears to the evidence."

For more information contact:

Peter Saunders on 01424 436407 or saunderspeter@yahoo.co.uk

Civitas on 020 7799 6677 or info@civitas.org.uk

Notes for Editors

i. Social Mobility Myths by Peter Saunders can be downloaded at this link.

ii. Peter Saunders is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Sussex. For further information about the author see: www.petersaunders.org.uk

iii. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

Civitas Email Update - May 2010

Tue, 25 May 2010 14:07:38 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

May 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Latest Publications

Prosperity With Principles by David Green (released Monday 12 April 2010).

Governments are in competition with each other for the location of industry. A Government that fails to create attractive conditions is committing economic suicide. Yet, according to David Green, at a time when we need economic growth more than at any point since the war, policy makers in all parties are still paralysed by doctrinal non-interventionism.
Read the publication here.

British Energy Policy And The Threat To Manufacturing Industry by Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson (released Friday 9 April 2010).

Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson examine the impact of Government policy on energy prices. They argue that the Government's aim to reduce carbon emissions and its interlinked objective of increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, are incurring significant costs on energy consumers. Read the publication here.

Formulas At War Over Two Sorts Of Inequality In Health Funding by Professor Mervyn Stone (released Thursday 29 April 2010).

England is now in its 16th year of using an unscientific formula for funding NHS primary care trusts (PCTs). Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London, examines the evidence presented by expert witnesses at a hearing of the Rural Services All-Party Parliamentary Group in February 2010. He argues that the current PCT-funding formula cannot be defended on any rational grounds. Read the publication here.

Comment from Civitas includes:

UK Economy:

Law and Order:

Health:

Education:

Family:

Further comments:

2010 Election Summaries on a number of topics have been available on our website since April (in the run up to the UK General Election). The briefings can be accessed here.

All books in the online bookshop for only £2 or less

For a limited time only, all publications in our online bookshop are available to buy for ONLY £2 or less.

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy and a liberal education for all, or how the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas Media Information: PCT funding formula �adjusted� to the tune of �10billion

Sun, 02 May 2010 08:13:06 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

2nd May 2010

Media Information: for immediate release

PCT funding formula 'adjusted' to the tune of £10billion

Extracting the truth about funding for health inequality

England is now in its 16th year of using an unscientific formula for funding NHS primary care trusts (PCTs). In a new report from Civitas, Formulas at war over two sorts of inequality in health funding, Mervyn Stone, Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London, examines the evidence presented by expert witnesses at a hearing of the Rural Services All-Party Parliamentary Group in February 2010. He argues that the current PCT-funding formula cannot be defended on any rational grounds:

'...the formula is a grotesque construction - and it became grotesque in the absence of any independent statistical assessment of what was being done'.

In 2008, a new formula (CARAN) was devised to take account of regional variations in age-profile. The authors of the new formula were commissioned by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation (ACRA). However, the new formula was undermined when ACRA encouraged Health Services Minister Ben Bradshaw to cut billions of pounds from the funds to be allocated by the new formula before it had even been put to work:

'...ambitious civil servants were exploiting the new discipline of health economics to go where statisticians would not dare to tread'

ACRA insisted that there was some case for adjusting CARAN in 2009 to divert money to maintain the existing 'balance' of funding between 'deprived' urban areas of England and 'affluent' or rural ones.

However, in Formulas at war over two sorts of inequality in health funding, Stone reveals that ACRA had absolutely no idea how big that adjustment should be:

'Due to lack of evidence, ACRA concluded that it is not currently possible to technically determine the cost of reducing health inequalities between PCTs... Ultimately, ACRA considered the weight to be applied to each formula to be a ministerial decision.' (p9)

It was left for the Minister to 'cut and paste' the formula and to simply choose a figure:

'Bradshaw top-sliced £10billion out of the PCT budget of £80billion'.

According to Stone, Ben Bradshaw's 13% re-allocation is now being spent by the thereby favoured PCTs just as it has been spent since 2003, except that it comes with an unobjectionable label - the reduction of long-term health inequalities. It is a sum of money that far outweighs the cost of what witnesses for the government acknowledged to be the largely ineffective public health programmes already attempted.

Stone sees a connection between this administrative scandal and the recent revelation of what Baroness Morgan told the undercover reporter for Channel 4's cash-for-influence Dispatches expose:

"Getting through the door is the key thing... They've all got their Key Performance indicators, they have all got to deliver this healthy living stuff... they don't know how to do it..."

Stone's intention is to alert people to the neglect of statistical thinking in the way government disposes of huge sums of money in mathematically nonsensical formulae. The question, as one witness put it, is:

'...on what basis the decision was made to ignore that academic evidence'.

Stone's analysis is particularly relevant in the run-up to next week's General Election, as he identifies a wider concern that politicians are avoiding discussion of this difficult issue. He calls for the government to be obliged to publicly defend its decision to "adjust" the formula.

For more information contact:

Mervyn Stone on 01895 674 715

Civitas on 020 7799 6677 or info@civitas.org.uk

Notes for Editors

i. Formulas at war over two sorts of inequality in health funding by Mervyn Stone can be downloaded at this link.

ii. Mervyn Stone is Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London.

iii. Failing to Figure by Mervyn Stone includes 19 pages worth of powerful and clear argument against the funding formula. It received the full support of the statistical profession and is available here.

iv. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding and has no links to any political party.

Civitas Email Update: Pre-Election Briefings

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:56:29 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

April 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Pre-Election Briefings

As an aid to all citizens we have prepared some pre-election briefings that set out the basic facts in key areas of domestic policy.

The topics can be found HERE and cover:

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas Media Information: Governments can, do and should �pick winners�

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:29:09 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

9 April 2010

Media Information: EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Monday 12 April 2010

Governments can, do and should 'pick winners'

To grow our way back to prosperity we need an effective industrial policy

Governments are in competition with each other for the location of industry. A Government that fails to create attractive conditions is committing economic suicide. Yet, according to Prosperity With Principles, just published by the independent think-tank Civitas, at a time when we need economic growth more than at any point since the war, policy makers in all parties are still paralysed by doctrinal non-interventionism.

From 1997 until very recently the Government has embraced non-interventionism with the enthusiasm of a cult - as if it wanted to be seen as 'more free-market than thou'. In recent months it has begun to have second thoughts and now favours 'industrial activism'. Nevertheless it has stood by while well over a million manufacturing jobs have disappeared.

Complacency

The urgency of our economic predicament means that we need to re-think some of the policy assumptions taken for granted since the 1980s. Despite some welcome steps towards a much-needed industrial policy, Lord Mandelson complacently points out that the UK is still the sixth largest manufacturer and on a recent Newsnight programme he highlighted the fact that 25% of Britain's goods exports were in 'advanced manufacture' whereas for the USA the proportion is only 22%. Such comparisons are merely comfort food for politicians. We should aim to be among the world's top exporters. If Germany can be the second largest exporter of manufactured goods (after China) then so could we.

National rivalry - learning from overseas

Policy makers take it for granted that governments can't 'pick winners'. But many governments have done just that and continue to do so. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil and France all provide examples. But in Britain, formulaic non-interventionism gets in the way of pragmatic policy evaluation.

If a government invests in a particular sector the fear is that money will go to the businesses with good political connections rather than those with good commercial ideas. This long-recognised danger has been overcome by tying state support to objective measures of success that can't easily be manipulated. Japan and South Korea, for example, linked support to export success. (pp. 14-15.)

The author of Prosperity With Principles, David Green, argues:

'As the first country to industrialise and as one of the most prosperous nations in existence, we tend to see ourselves in a different light from developing nations. But the scale of industrial decline combined with the weakness of our public finances has made this attitude a luxury we can't afford. We should not, therefore, be too proud to learn from nations that have enjoyed rapid growth in recent years.' (p. 9.)

When protectionism is justified

Some foolish industrial policies have been followed, but there have also been successes. We should learn to distinguish between the two. Many free-market economists accept the need for infant-industry protection - new companies need some space to grow. But, the same reasoning should be applied to established companies that get into difficulties or face demanding transitions. (p. 29.) They too should be allowed space for recovery or adjustment. Rolls Royce had been nationalised in the 1970s and was supported with taxpayer's funds in the Thatcher era until it was able to stand alone. In the 1970s the German Government gave temporary support to Volkswagen.

In their anxiety to uphold non-interventionism the Government has been more free-market than Mrs Thatcher, who was pragmatic in defending British companies, helping to win overseas orders and resisting foreign takeovers through 'golden shares'. In the Major era, Michael Heseltine famously quipped that he would intervene before 'breakfast, dinner and tea' to help British companies.

Freedom is one of the highest human ideals; free trade is a mere policy strategy. Although free trade is sometimes confused with the ideal of liberty, the only important question is whether it achieves the economic results expected of it. As John Stuart Mill recognised, it is not an ideal but a theory about what works and fails in wealth creation. If theory does not work in practice, then try something else. (pp. 33-34.)

Adam Smith approved of limited protectionism

Perhaps surprisingly, Adam Smith favoured the navigation acts, which were calculated to take the shipping trade from the Dutch. Even though the navigation acts were the result of 'national animosity', Smith thought they were as wise 'as if they had all been dictated by the most deliberate wisdom'. (p. 22.)

He also favoured retaliation when another country imposed duties on us. In such a case 'revenge' naturally dictated retaliation, leading to the imposition of like duties on them. Retaliation would be likely to encourage the repeal of foreign tariffs and the inevitable extra expense was justified in order to gain trade.

Moreover, foreign competition should 'never be introduced suddenly, but slowly, gradually, and after a very long warning'. (p. 23.) And he favoured a 'considerable tax' on exports of raw wool, which he felt would give a 'sufficient advantage' to British manufacturers compared with foreign rivals. (p. 24.)

Business as a vocation

Maximisation of shareholder value is a shallow mockery of the ideal of free enterprise. Our institutions should encourage businesses to be owned by people who plan to develop a long-standing structure for providing goods and services. Warren Buffett, one of the most successful investors of all time, famously gives three instructions to the chief executive officers of his numerous businesses. They are to run their companies as if (1) they are the sole owner; (2) it is the only asset they hold; and (3) they can never sell or merge it for 100 years. (p. x.)

According to David Green: 'Business leadership should be a vocation, not a relentless search for the best return on capital to the exclusion of all other human responsibilities.' (p. x.)

Misunderstanding the ideal of freedom

It's not about imposing markets 'as the crow flies'

'Our heritage of liberalism differs from the formulaic non-interventionism that has distorted our understanding in recent years. A free society is a free people with a state committed to personal freedom; not a group of people without a state or with only a tiny government. Freedom is a contrivance of politics, not a spontaneous state of affairs.'
(p. 7.)

'Freedom has been confused with doctrinal non-interventionism, a general hostility to government action that still pervades discussion even when it is formally renounced. While adhering to liberal principles, nations should adopt the policies that work for them. There is more than one liberal path to prosperity.' (p. xi.)

Legitimate patriotism

There is a tendency to confuse all patriotism with aggressive nationalism. It is perfectly possibly to be legitimately patriotic, to refrain from nationalistic animosity, and yet unashamedly to pursue our national interests in a spirit compatible with international reciprocity.

'Increased wealth would enable us to trade with others on mutually agreed terms. It is not a 'beggar-my-neighbour' policy. To be in a position to trade with others, people have to be prosperous enough to buy products in the first place... Today China is pursuing a one-sided strategy of national advantage at the expense of others. Trade should not be a kind of non-violent struggle for national supremacy. Its essence is mutual advantage and no nation should press its advantages too hard.' (p. 27.)

We can learn from Keynes. He did not want large scale or general protection and nor did he want a strategy of national self-sufficiency, but he did believe that we were well-adapted as a nation to make cars and steel and should not allow short-term fluctuations to bring whole industries down. (p. 26.)

Foreign takeovers should be restricted

At a time when the Government has allowed a foreign company to take over our steel industry and now to 'mothball' the Redcar steel plant, policy makers should heed Keynes' words. Corus claims that Redcar makes the wrong kind of steel, but that is not the point. If it were owned by a British company it would be investing in steel products for which there is a market. Instead its investment is going into new plants in the Netherlands and India.

Until the 2002 Enterprise Act the Secretary of State could make an order to prevent an action that 'harmed the economic interests of consumers'. A power to protect the public interest when dealing with foreign takeovers now urgently needs to be restored.

There are some legitimate reasons for questioning foreign takeovers. Sometimes the intention may be to reduce competition from a British rival. In some cases a new owner may put the national interest of his own homeland above the interests of British workers. The head office may move overseas and valuable service contracts lost. Foreign owners are also more likely to close their British branch in a downturn. Often takeovers are funded by debt which is loaded onto the books of the acquired company, adding to its costs and making it more difficult for it to compete. Meanwhile, the private-equity buyer has re-sold the company and moved on.

To pretend that every takeover is well-intentioned and economically beneficial is naive. As one of our most distinguished economic commentators has noted, the modern era has seen the 'the triumph of the global over the local, of the speculator over the manager, and the financier over the producer'.

Notes for Editors

i. Prosperity With Principles: Some Policies for Economic Growth by David G. Green is published by Civitas.

Download a PDF of Prosperity With Principles

ii.For more information ring: David Green, Director of Civitas on:

Work: 020 7799 6677

Home: 01344 773453

iii. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding and has no links to any political party.

Civitas Media Information: Climate-change policies threaten British jobs

Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:34:16 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

7 April 2010

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Friday 9 April 2010

Climate-change policies threatening British jobs

The Government's preoccupation with 'green' energy policies sabotages the competitiveness of manufacturing industry

A new report from the independent think tank Civitas reveals that the increased costs of energy arising from the Government's 'green' energy policies are set to increase significantly.

In British Energy Policy And The Threat To Manufacturing Industry, Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson examine the impact of Government policy on energy prices. They argue that the Government's aim to reduce carbon emissions and its interlinked objective of increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, are incurring significant costs on energy consumers.

Business electricity bills already incur a 21% 'surcharge' because of 'green' commitments

Lea and Nicholson cite evidence that the Government's climate change strategy is hiking up electricity bills. For example, BERR estimated in 2008 that the 'surcharge' on electricity prices, attributable to climate-change policies, amounted to an extra 14% for domestic users and 21% for business. Furthermore, DECC's The Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) suggested that these surcharges could be as high as 33% and 70% by 2020 respectively.

Lea and Nicholson highlight the two major legislative commitments responsible:

1. The Climate Change Act (2008) - including a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

2. The EU's Renewables Directive (2008) - under which the UK must meet 15% of its final energy consumption through renewable sources by 2020.

Britain will bear a greater cost than other countries

This country is particularly badly placed for such commitments. First, Britain is starting with a very modest renewables industry, so the burden of the EU's Renewables Directive will be substantial:

'The proportion of renewables to total energy consumption in 2005 was just 1.3%, compared with an EU27 average of 8.5%.' (p.7)

'Such extra costs will inevitably tilt the balance for many businesses and render them unviable in Britain.' (p.11)

Energy intensive industries to be hardest hit
- with a domino effect on downstream industries

'Britain is already losing energy intensive businesses because of the lack of competitiveness... There is no doubt that high energy prices have already been a factor behind industry closures.' (p.11)

'Rather than import the basic chemicals, many of the downstream businesses would probably migrate to countries where they were still domestically produced for reasons of reliability of supply and transport costs.' (p.14)

Policy must help rather than hinder

As the economy struggles to emerge from the economic crisis of 2008-2009, it is widely assumed that the manufacturing sector will contribute positively to the general recovery and the rebalancing of the economy. Under these circumstances, the report calls on Government to ensure that manufacturing industries are supported by policies that help rather than hinder their competitiveness. According to Ruth Lea:

'The economy desperately needs a competitive and thriving manufacturing sector if it is to prosper. Competitive energy prices are vital to the success of manufacturers, especially energy intensive users. Government energy policies are, however, remorselessly driving up energy costs thus risking the "migration" of manufacturing plants to economies where the costs are lower.'

For more information ring:

Ruth Lea on: 07800 608674

Jeremy Nicholson on: 07785 280568

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent think tank. It receives no state funding and has no links to any political party.

iv. British Energy Policy And The Threat To Manufacturing Industry by Ruth Lea and Jeremy Nicholson can be downloaded at this link.

Civitas Email Update - April 2010

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 06:48:13 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

April 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Latest Publications

Prospects for the UK Balance of Payments by Ken Coutts and Robert Rowthorn, with a commentary by Bill Martin (released 27 March 2010).

A sound balance of payments is required for national solvency. Countries cannot continuously run large current account deficits because of the resulting growth of foreign debt; sooner or later some form of adjustment will be required. In Prospects for the UK Balance of Payments, University of Cambridge economists Ken Coutts and Robert Rowthorn present a previously unseen projection of what will happen to the UK current account balance over the next decade. The picture revealed is bleak; they fear that the UK's current account deficit could steadily deteriorate from under 2 per cent of GDP to almost 5 per cent by 2020. The UK economy has become dangerously unbalanced as we have put too much faith in finance at the expense of manufacturing. Coutts and Rowthorn recommend tackling the deficit with policies designed to boost UK trade performance: in particular assigning a central role to manufacturing. Read the publication here.

The impact of the NHS market: An overview of the literature by Laura Brereton and Vilashiny Vasoodaven (released on 1 March 2010).

As the debate over the future of a market in the NHS intensifies, the independent think tank Civitas releases the first comprehensive review of the evidence since the most recent policy overhaul in 2002. It illustrates that the NHS appears to be in the unfortunate position of taking on the extra costs of competition without realising the benefits. Market-based reform in the NHS promised great things, but, as things stand, it has yet to bring about the benefits we see from markets in other industries in any comprehensive form: increased responsiveness to customers; better quality; improved efficiency; and innovation. Whilst there have been some improvements, wavering commitment to the idea of a market has unquestionably stymied the impact it could have had on the NHS. Read the publication here.

Comment from Civitas includes:

UK Economy:

Law and Order:

Community cohesion:

Health:

Education:

Family:

The Register - Child safety tsar demands faster action

Further comments:

2010 Election Summaries on a number of topics will be available on our website in April, in the run up to the UK General Election.

All books in the online bookshop for only £2 or less

For a limited time only, all publications in our online bookshop are available to buy for ONLY £2 or less.

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy and a liberal education for all, or how the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas Media Information: Balance of payments deficit

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:58:19 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

March 2010

Media Information: EMBARGO: 00.01am Saturday 27th March 2010

Balance of payments deficit could unravel Budget calculations

5% hole in the UK current account predicted

A new report from the independent think tank Civitas predicts a further deterioration of the UK current account balance. The UK deficit is likely to more than double from the 2009 rate of 2% of GDP to almost 5% in 2020. A current account deficit of that size would make untenable the plans of all political parties to reduce our huge national debt.

In Prospects for the UK Balance of Payments, Cambridge University economists Robert Rowthorn and Ken Coutts present a previously uncalculated projection for the UK balance of payments.

The 'gloomy' forecast

Resolving a deficit of the predicted magnitude would be very painful involving lost output and higher unemployment. The problematic deficit has been buried by the euphoria of a prolonged economic boom. Today, however, the urgency of the problem has been brought home by the credit crisis and ensuing recession.

Undermining the Budget

All predictions of future economic trends are fraught with uncertainty, but Professor Rowthorn and Ken Coutts have had a solid record in the past. In the short run deficits are not necessarily significant, but most economists accept that sooner or later the current account should balance. Moreover, larger deficits take longer to adjust and are associated with significantly slower output growth during the current-account recovery. (p. 15)

Ultimately, therefore the reality of a 5% chasm in the UK current account could undermine Alistair Darling's Budget forecasts. Rowthorn and Coutts assume that:

UK domestic spending will increase by 1.5% p.a. in 2010, 2.5% p.a. in 2011 and 3% thereafter;
The real price of imported food will increase at 2% p.a. from 2010;
UK energy imports will rise as the volume of UK North Sea oil production falls by 7% p.a. from 2010.

What can the Government do?

Coutts and Rowthorn argue that the Government should do whatever it can to help the City, the manufacturing sector and other knowledge-based services:

Future reform of the financial sector should be designed to contribute to the export potential of this sector.
In the case of manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services, there is scope for an 'industrial policy'. Such a policy is now coming back into fashion.

They also argue for a weak pound:

'The big devaluation that occurred in 2007-08 has given UK exporters an advantage and the government should aim to preserve this advantage by pursuing appropriate monetary and fiscal policies. Indeed, to the extent that it is feasible, there is a case for engineering a further sterling devaluation.' (p. 15)

The authors think the City is vital to our future prosperity but argue that too much faith has been put in financial services in the past, forfeiting the benefits of other activities, such as manufacturing: 'it is likely that global finance will become more regulated, more conservative, and on average less profitable than in the past.' (p. 6)

We will need to assign a central role to manufacturing

'The scale of UK trade in manufactures is, and will remain for years to come, larger than the exports of the City of London and all knowledge-intensive services put together. Safeguarding the City and increasing knowledge-intensive exports are both important objectives, but success in these areas would not remove the need to improve the trade performance of the manufacturing sector.' (p. 15)

In 2008 manufacturing exports were worth £193.6 billion and exports of financial services plus knowledge-intensive services were worth £127.8 billion.

When the oil runs out

In a commentary Bill Martin argues that the UK will have to undergo a large structural adjustment when the oil runs out:

'We are rightly concerned that the banking sector may not fill the gap; we know that the UK appears to suffer from a disparity in trade elasticities – with the import elasticity higher than the export elasticity – and we also know that there are asymmetric adjustment pressures. Capital market pressures placed on deficit countries to adjust can be much greater than the pressure applied to surplus countries. This means the costs of being over-concerned about the UK’s balance of payments position may well be less than the costs of being under-concerned.'

For more information contact:

Robert Rowthorn on: 01223 368 235

Civitas on: 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

ii. Robert Rowthorn is Emeritus Professor of Economics and Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. He is the author of a number of academic articles on economic growth, structural change and the balance of payments.

iii. Ken Coutts is Assistant Director of Research in the Faculty of Economics, Cambridge and Fellow in Economics at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He has published a number of articles on developments in Britain's balance of payments.

iv.Prospects for the UK balance of payments by Robert Rowthorn and Ken Coutts can be downloaded here.

Civitas Health Unit Bulletin: March 2010

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:06:46 +0100

Civitas Health Unit - Bulletin (Dec 09)

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

March 2010

Health Unit Bulletin: Spring 2010

Welcome to the Spring bulletin from the Civitas Health Unit, to notify you of our work.

In this email:
NHS market failing to deliver benefits thus far | Responding to the BMA's 'Look After Our NHS' campaign | Young Civitas for Medics

NHS MARKET FAILING TO DELIVER WIDESPREAD BENEFITS THUS FAR

In the second interim report of Civitas' year-long study looking at the operation of the market in the NHS, Laura Brereton and Vilashiny Vasoodaven summarise all the academic evidence around the various market-based initiatives between 1991 and 1997, and post-2002, from GP fundholding to foundation trusts.

They find that while evidence exists to suggest the market has contributed to:

Improved access for patients

Reduced waiting times

Increased efficiency and improved financial management in providers

Overall, 'the available research indicates that the NHS may have found itself in a lose-lose situation-taking on the extra costs of competition without experiencing the benefits'.

Read the full report.

Read an executive summary.

Read Financial Times article.

Read the first interim report: Markets in health care: The theory behind the policy.

RESPONDING TO THE BMA'S 'LOOK AFTER OUR NHS' CAMPAIGN

Reviewing the British Medical Association's 'Look After our NHS' campaign, a Civitas briefing pointed out a number of inaccuracies and omissions in the evidence presented.

James Gubb, Director of the Health Unit at Civitas, said: 'The BMA's stance goes to the heart of the debate in the NHS at present: whether the financial challenges facing the NHS meant taxpayers' money should be spent supporting NHS providers, or spent on the provider - NHS or non-NHS - that can offer the best deal on quality and cost'.

The case for the latter option is made in articles by Civitas researchers for The Guardian's Comment is Free, The Yorkshire Post, The British Medical Journal and yesterday's Daily Telegraph (click links to follow).

Young Civitas for Medics

YCfM, an initiative to involve medical students in health policy discussions and increase their knowledge of the NHS, continues to go from strength to strength, now with over 1,000 student members.

In February over 200 students gathered to hear Professor Sir Mike Rawlins (NICE) and Dr Richard Barker (ABPI) debate the role of NICE.

And in March, a similar number braved the elements and pre-exam stress to hear Professor Sir Bruce Keogh (NHS Medical Director) and Mr Mark Goldman (Heart of England NHS FT) discuss clinical leadership and the relationship between doctors and managers.

You can find out more about YCfM at: www.ycfm.org.uk, where you can also find resources from the events.

If you are interested in becoming involved in this, advertising it further or sponsorship opportunities, please contact James Gubb (james.gubb@civitas.org.uk).

----------------------------------

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about our research. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list please email unsubscribe@civitas.org.uk.

With best wishes,

James Gubb

----------------------------------

James Gubb

Director - Civitas Health Unit

Tel: 020 7799 6677

www.civitas.org.uk/nhs

james.gubb@civitas.org.uk

Civitas Email Update - February 2010

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:10:49 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

February 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Latest Publications

Corporation tax: Beating the Competition by Richard Baron and Corin Taylor (released 12 Feb 10)

A new Civitas report, Corporation tax: Beating the Competition, argues that the UK's current tax burden is jeopardising business and undermining our ability to escape from recession. Unlike the rest of the world, the UK has raised, rather than reduced its burden on business. Supporting business is crucial to the UK's recovery from the current recession. The authors, Richard Baron and Corin Taylor, present a 'recession-proof' solution to get Britain back on track: reduce the corporation tax rate to 15% over a ten-year period. Read the publication here.

Challenging myths of mythical challenges by Mervyn Stone (released 22 Feb 10)

In Not 'challenging myths' but mythical challenges, UCL Emeritus Professor Mervyn Stone exposes the way in which political agendas are playing a significant role in the presentation of official statistics. Stone pertinently illustrates this by taking the example of 'Sleepwalking to segregation'?: Challenging myths about race and migration a book by two University of Manchester social scientists, Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson. Mervyn Stone urges 'detailed scrutiny and analysis' of statistical publications and says that it is of utmost importance for statisticians to present data on immigration without misrepresenting the evidence for a political motive. Read the publication here.

Comment from Civitas includes:

UK Economy:

Law and Order:

Telegraph - Ali Dizaei: Time to arrest the grievance culture (feature length article)

Community cohesion:

Daily Mail - Now Labour recruits army of child spies to report anti-social neighbours

Health:

Education:

Family:

All books in the online bookshop for only £2 or less

For a limited time only, all publications in our online bookshop are available to buy for ONLY £2 or less.

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy and a liberal education for all, or how the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

NHS market failing to deliver widespread benefits, shows comprehensive review of evidence

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:17:02 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Comprehensive review of evidence shows NHS market failing to deliver widespread benefits

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

February 2010

Media information: EMBARGO: 0001hrs Monday 1 March 2010

Comprehensive review of evidence shows NHS market failing to deliver widespread benefits

Lose-lose situation as market forces and central control jostle to be main lever of reform

Improved access for patients

Reduced waiting times

Increased efficiency and improved financial management in providers

However, benefits are not widespread:

Providers remain all-powerful and commissioners (Primary Care Trusts) weak

Innovation is meagre

Payment systems encourage providers to be 'average'

Inter-professional and inter-organisational collaboration is undermined

Laura Brereton, author of the report, said: 'While there have been improvements, they are not clearly attributable to market-based reforms. The NHS appears to be in the unfortunate position of taking on the extra costs of competition without realising the benefits'.

What's happened

In The impact of the NHS market: An overview of the literature authors Laura Brereton and Vilashiny Vasoodaven draw together the existing evidence on the effectiveness of the various market initiatives pursued by New Labour in the NHS since 2002.

On the demand side

As commissioners, Primary Care Trusts lack the necessary skills to drive performance and purchase effectively; are reluctant to break historic patterns of purchasing care; and are afraid to stand up to providers. Their accountability is weak.

Practice-based Commissioning - commissioning at GP level - is being led by a few enthusiastic practices to good effect.

But many practice-based commissioners are more interested in self-provision than commissioning new services; the quality of financial infrastructure and information is highly variable; and governance is poor.

Patient choice has contributed to a decrease in waiting times and led some providers to advertise services.

But the uptake of choice is not widespread; the Choose and Book system on which it relies is restrictive; and the quality of information on providers available to patients is weak.

On the supply side

The threat of competition has, in some places, driven efficiency. Quality of care, including patient satisfaction, is often seen to be better in 'new entrants', such as privately-run Independent Sector Treatment Centres.

But competition has led to confusion over the relationship between providers and commissioners, and has made inter-organisational/professional collaboration more difficult.

Foundation trusts have generally performed well financially and on routine quality measures. They are gradually increasing public involvement.

But they were the best performing hospitals even before their status changed and there is little robust evidence to suggest they are particularly innovative.

On payment

The payment-by-results tariff has coincided with an increase in activity and efficiency; a decrease in unit costs; and improved financial management.

But cost control remains poor; the tariff - set at average costs - encourages providers to be 'average'; and hospitals are incentivised to induce demand inappropriately.

Lost benefits

Author Laura Brereton said: 'Market-based reform in the NHS promised great things, but, as things stand, it has yet to bring about the benefits we see from markets in other industries in any comprehensive form: increased responsiveness to customers; better quality; improved efficiency; and innovation'.

James Gubb, director of the health unit at Civitas, said: 'This review could not have come at a more important time, when debate about the future of the market in the NHS is intensifying and finances are starting to bite.

'More work is needed, but it is clear there have been both benefits and costs. Whilst the NHS is better than it was in 2002, wavering commitment to the idea of a market has unquestionably stymied the impact it could have had.'

For more information contact James Gubb/Laura Brereton on: 020 7799 6677 / 079 3024 3570

Notes for Editors

ii. Civitas is currently conducting an in-depth study into how markets are operating in the NHS, for which this review forms a backdrop. It is due to be published in April.

iii. The full review can be accessed at: www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/download/Civitas_LiteratureReview_NHS_market_Feb10.pdf

Civitas Media Information: Migrating away from reality

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:40:38 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Government's faltering commitment to competition will hurt the NHS

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

February 2010

Media information: Embargo 00.01am Monday 22 February 2010

Migrating away from reality

UCL statistician calls for immigration data to be served raw - however politically unpalatable.

In 'Not 'challenging myths' but mythical challenges', UCL Emeritus Professor Mervyn Stone exposes the way in which political agendas are playing a significant role in the presentation of official statistics.

Nowhere does this politicisation apply more readily, Professor Stone argues, than on data relating to immigration.

As a highly charged political issue, immigration is particularly susceptible to data 'management'.

Stone illustrates the 'vulnerability' of immigration data in a penetrating critique of 'Sleepwalking to segregation'?: Challenging myths about race and migration by two University of Manchester social scientists, Nissa Finney and Ludi Simpson. A book that claims to expose seriously damaging errors in statistical arguments, with MigrationWatchUK a primary target.

Yet playing them at their own game, Stone unravels the way in which Finney and Simpson's 'academic' analysis of MigrationWatchUK's presentation of immigration figures falls into the very types of traps they claim to be concerned about.

The accusation

Finney and Simpson's accusation is that immigration data are being hijacked for political purposes. They attack MigrationWatchUK on the basis of its 'inaccurate use of statistics ... playing with figures to find a large number to quote'. This is done, Finney and Simpson argue, 'to make a political case' - against immigration:

'A key component of MigrationWatchUK's anti-immigration argument is immigration's detrimental effect on the economy ... although immigration results in economic growth it is cancelled out by the increase in population ... Using this reasoning, MigrationWatchUK has challenged official statistics on the economic impact of immigration'. (p4)

Own goal

The irony Stone points to is that Finney and Simpson are doing exactly that which they accuse MigrationWatchUK of doing - the only difference is that their agenda differs. Professor Stone demonstrates this by presenting a forensic, step-by-step analysis of the statistical semantics and logic of 'Sleepwalking to segregation'? to argue that Finney and Simpson themselves have distorted the facts.

For example, Finney and Simpson dispute the claim that: 'In the 1990s, immigration became the most important component of population growth (accounting for 83%)' as both 'false and peculiar'. However Stone disagrees, citing the original source as the Government Actuary's Department [GAD] projection for the period 2003-31:

'The overall effect of immigration would (under the assumptions made) account for 82.9% of the population increase in the 27 years'.

Professor Stone also argues that the Home Office's claim that immigration contributes £2.5 billion per year towards GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which is endorsed by Finney and Simpson, is inflated. Instead, according to Stone, when calculating immigration's contribution to GDP, 'per capita GDP' is a better measure than GDP because it takes account of the fact that immigration increases not only GDP but also population. (p9)

Call for neutrality

Stone's point is that immigration data is being massaged. One of the key dangers of data's potential for manipulation is that political 'inconveniences' can be dismissed by simply 'discrediting' statistics which weaken the status quo. Professor Stone illustrates the need for academic procedure which removes room for manipulation. Stone credits Finney and Simpson's accusations as 'welcome because they are bold and explicit and because their statistical targets are, in the end, clearly specified'. The alternative being, he argues, simply writing data off on the basis of a political viewpoint.

Mervyn Stone urges 'detailed scrutiny and analysis' of statistical publications and says that it is of the utmost importance for statisticians to present data on immigration without misrepresenting the evidence for a political motive.

Ultimately, data need to be served raw, rather than 'cooked up' according to what's on the political menu.

For more information contact:

Mervyn Stone on 01895 674 715 or mervyn.stone@yahoo.co.uk

Notes for Editors

i. 'Not 'challenging myths' but mythical challenges' by Mervyn Stone can be downloaded here.

ii. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

iii. The views expressed in the report are those of the author, not of the Institute's.

iii. Professor Mervyn Stone is Emeritus Professor of Statistics at University College London.

BMA campaign to shut out independent sector from NHS is misguided and foolhardy

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:42:14 +0100

Civitas Press Release: BMA campaign to shut out independent sector from NHS is misguided and foolhardy

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

February 2010

Media information: immediate release

BMA campaign to shut out independent sector from NHS is misguided and foolhardy

The BMA today extend their 'Look After Our NHS' campaign, to stop commercially run firms providing NHS care and end the market in the NHS, to patients.

Leaflets will be distributed containing stories such as a 70-year-old lady who is forced to go to a treatment centre run by a private provider and suffers 'complications'.

The BMA are shamelessly politicising health care on cherry-picked evidence.

The BMA states:

ON BUREAUCRACY

The creation of a market in the NHS has meant an increase in bureaucracy; the number of senior managers in the NHS rose by 91% between 1995 and 2008 - more than double the increase in numbers of doctors and nurses.

The market has increased transaction costs, but a large part of the increase in senior managers is due to:

The NHS having historically low (and inadequate) levels of managers vis-�-vis other health systems.

The sheer amount of paperwork demanded by the government and numerous regulators to satisfy central requirements.

ON ISTCs

Many private NHS providers have received millions in guaranteed payments for contracts, despite treating fewer patients than planned; on average, the first wave of Independent Sector Treatment Centres delivered just 85% of activity paid for - suggesting a shortfall of �220 million on the �1.47 billion contracts.

This is true. But what is not quantified is:

The fact quality of care is typically higher in ISTCs than the NHS. For example, the Healthcare Commission found length of stay and rates of readmission to hospital to be consistently and significantly lower in ISTCs than the national average; and patient satisfaction rates to be significantly higher.

The impact of ISTCs on NHS providers. There is mounting evidence to suggest ISTCs caused NHS providers to drive performance in a way that would not have happened without a competitive threat, such as in Plymouth NHS Trust from the Peninsula ISTC; in Southampton University Hospitals Trust from the Southampton ISTC; and in Yeovil NHS Foundation Trust from Shepton Mallet ISTC.

ON GP-LED HEALTH CENTRES

New 'GP-led health centres' have been costly, enjoying on average three times the funding per patient of regular GP practices, despite in some cases very few patients registering with them. The new GP-led health centres were demanded of Primary Care Trusts by the Department of Health.

They were a central initiative and not a market response. What they did do was address the fact that access to GPs is disproportionately better in more affluent areas.

ON PFI

The Private Finance Initiative is now funding over 100 new hospital schemes, valued at �10.9 billion, but set to cost the taxpayer �62.6 billion by the time the final payments are made in 2048.

PFI deals reflect more the weakness of public sector procurement and lack of trust on the part of the public sector towards the private sector, than a flawed model per se. The contracts negotiated are inflexible. Many facilities built are inappropriate and governed by rigid rules that make adaptation to 21st century models of health care incredibly difficult.

... A CHOICE

The NHS is facing a choice. The best estimates are that with zero real growth -which looks likely - the NHS will face a shortfall of �20 billion by 2013/14, rising to �38 billion by 2016/17 vis-�-vis need. Productivity improvements are needed on a scale never seen in the NHS's 62-year history.

The NHS can take the BMA's route and close its doors to the independent sector, or it can harness the sectors' expertise (and the voluntary sector's) by breaking down barriers to entry. The latter is the optimum course:

NHS productivity has declined by 4% between 1997-2007, whereas average private sector productivity increased by 23% in the same period.

The liberalisation of other industries is indicative. Regulatory reforms that introduced competition into UK electricity, gas and water industries resulted in 'phenomenal rates' of productivity growth of over 10 per cent per annum across the 1990s.

Evidence from Europe suggests higher performing health systems have a mixed economy of provision.

... OUT OF TOUCH

The BMA are out of touch with the public and trying to protect their own from radical changes that will be required:

The number of patients now choosing to go to independent sector providers at the point of referral has increased from 8,928 (2.3% of Choose and Book referrals) to 26,733 (5.5%) between April 2008 and September 2009. They do not seem concerned by 'profiteering'.

In a nationally-representative survey of 2,001 people commissioned by the NHS Partners Network:

74% said the NHS needed 'to change to survive'; and

74% more closely align themselves with the statement 'I don't mind who owns or runs my NHS services so long as the quality is right' than 'Services on the NHS should only be conducted in a hospital or other medical facilities run and owned by the government'.

'I suspect most of the public would side with the latter. Affinity lies with the values underlying the NHS: universal, comprehensive health care, free-at-the-point-of-use, rather than who provides the service'.

For more information contact James Gubb on: 020 7799 6677 / 079 3024 3570

Notes for Editors

ii. Civitas is currently conducting an in-depth study into how markets are operating in the NHS, due to be published in March.

iii. Civitas and the Socialist Health Association are holding a debate on the future of the market in the NHS on 17 March. See: http://www.sochealth.co.uk/confs/markets.html

iv. The research for the NHS PN survey was conducted among a representative sample of 2,001 English adults aged 18+; Fieldwork was conducted by telephone 1-5 July 2009; Data weighted to the national population profile of England; NHSPN commissioned ICM Direct to carry out the poll on their behalf.

Civitas Media Information: Corporation Tax

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:25:25 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Government's faltering commitment to competition will hurt the NHS

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

February 2010

Media information: Immediate release (Friday 12 February 2010)

Putting the UK back in business

A new Civitas report, Corporation tax: Beating the Competition, argues that the UK's current tax burden is jeopardising business and undermining our ability to escape from recession.

Unlike the rest of the world, the UK has raised, rather than reduced its burden on business.

Supporting business is crucial to the UK's recovery from the current recession. Only businesses can provide the jobs, incomes and profits that allow taxes to be collected to pay for public services, so the UK must ensure that tax levels are conducive to companies' survival.

After all, if businesses fail, there will be no tax revenue.

The authors, Richard Baron and Corin Taylor, present a 'recession-proof' solution to get Britain back on track: reduce the corporation tax rate to 15% over a ten-year period:.

'A low rate would enhance competitiveness, reducing the proportion of profits taken in tax and the proportion of total tax revenue which came from business profits.' (p14)

Business fleeing the UK

By contrast, current levels of corporation tax in the UK are pushing business away. The growing trend of companies relocating outside the UK is a serious threat to the UK's economic health:

'KPMG's most recent annual survey on the UK's tax competitiveness found the proportion of groups surveyed that were actively considering leaving the UK had more than doubled, from 6% the previous year to 14%. Of the 20 FTSE 100 companies surveyed in November 2009, four were actively considering moving.' (p8)

In short, taxation levels on their profits make a critical difference to businesses choosing which countries to reside in.

Overseas competition

Whilst UK rates are at an all time high, corporation tax rates around the world have been falling rapidly:

'A 2000 survey of corporation tax rates across 86 countries worldwide found that the average corporation tax rate was 31.1%, above the UK's rate of 30% in that year. In 2009, the average rate across the 116 countries surveyed was just 24.2%.' (p6)

The UK headline rate is 28%.

Declining rates of corporation tax have enhanced the competitiveness of regions such as Asia-Pacific.

'In 2000, the average corporation tax rate across the 19 Asia-Pacific countries surveyed was 31.4%. In 2009, the average rate across the 20 Asia-Pacific countries surveyed had fallen to 27.5%.' (p7)

Particularly as the UK will never match the Asia-Pacific region for low-cost labour, so it needs to be ahead in other ways - the rate of corporation tax should be, and indeed used to be, one of the factors where the UK led the world:

'Out of the 86 countries surveyed worldwide, the UK had the joint 29th lowest corporation tax rate in 2000. In 2009, the UK's rate was the 68th lowest out of the 116 countries surveyed.' (p7)

The Government has added to the UK's disadvantages at exactly the wrong moment.

The burden of UK taxation

Over the past decade the UK has lost much of the competitiveness that its tax system once enjoyed. The World Bank's estimate of the total tax rate for 183 countries around the world ranked the UK 67th, and a 2008 survey of FTSE 100 companies found that total taxes borne were 45% of pre-tax profits:

'Out of the other countries on which data were collected using the same "total tax contribution" methodology, the UK FTSE 100 companies faced the third highest average total tax rate, behind Belgium and the US; the third highest average total tax rate as a percentage of turnover, behind Canada and the Netherlands; and the second highest average figure for employment taxes per employee, behind Belgium.' (p7)

The volume of UK taxation

This plummeting in the international rankings is no surprise considering the growing bulk of UK tax legislation:

'25 years ago, the annual CCH collection of UK tax legislation comprised two volumes, together occupying five inches of shelf space. Today, there are seven volumes and they take up more than a foot of shelf space.'

Today, the UK's overall tax burden is well above the OECD average:

'The UK is now ranked 84th out of 133 countries on the "extent and effect of taxation" as measured by the World Economic Forum. In other words, 83 countries around the world have tax systems that suffer from fewer disincentives than the UK's. In 2004-05, by contrast, the UK ranked 18th out of 104 countries.' (p8)

The overall cost

As reduced tax rates are good for economic growth, some effect on revenue from corporation tax can be recouped in tax revenue increases.

Baron and Taylor estimate that reducing the corporation tax rate would at most cost £22.4bn (only 3% of total government spending), and the cost could be as low as £12.4bn. They conclude:

'Either figure would be a very small price to pay for restoring the UK's tax competitiveness, a move that would bring jobs and capital to the country. Ultimately the public finances would benefit, as well as the private sector.' (p27)

For more information contact:

Richard Baron on 020 7451 3212 and Corin Taylor on 020 7451 3263

Notes for Editors

i. 'Corporation tax: Beating the Competition' by Richard Baron and Corin Taylor can be downloaded here.

ii. Richard Baron is Head of Taxation at the Institute of Directors (IoD). Corin Taylor is a Senior Policy Advisor at the IoD.

iii. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

Civitas Email Update - January 2010

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:57:33 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

January 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Latest Publications

The secrets of Academies' success by Anastasia de Waal (released 14 Dec 09)

A new study based on a survey of Academies raises serious doubts over whether Academies are in reality all they have been cracked up to be: "The Government is so fixated on headline A*-C rates that it apparently doesn't regard the subjects and qualifications Academies are doing as significant". Read the publication here. Coverage includes:

Markets in health care: the theory behind the policy by James Gubb and Oliver Meller-Herbert (released 18 Dec 09)

James Gubb and Oliver Meller-Herbert argue that the NHS will not meet its productivity challenge while the Government continues to back away from using markets and competition. Read the publication here. Coverage includes:

Liberal Education and the National Curriculum by David Conway (released 4 Jan 10)

Whilst acknowledging the criticisms of the current National Curriculum as overly prescriptive, by tracing its origins and development, Professor David Conway argues that these criticisms should not rule out the idea of a national curriculum altogether. He aserts that a liberal education is crucial to prepare young people for participation in a free and democratic society, and so he calls for the provision of a liberal education for all. Read the publication here. Coverage includes:

Time for Turning? Why the Conservatives need to rethink their industrial policy (if they have one) by David Merlin-Jones (released 27 Jan 10)

In the latest Civitas Review, David Merlin-Jones argues whichever party wins the next election 'would do well to follow in the footsteps of their Thatcherite predecessors and get involved in industry'. Arguing against a laissez-faire approach, Merlin-Jones calls on industrial policymakers to create a hybrid landscape where pragmatism trumps ideology. Read the publication here. Coverage includes:

The Telegraph - A Cameron Government 'should intervene to save British firms from going bust'

Comment from Civitas includes:

Family:

The Times - David Cameron's downgrade to married tax plans is driven by economics

The Guardian - Stress marriage in sex education

The Express - Divorce at Lowest for Three Decades

Education:

The Telegraph - Knowledge must come first, then teaching

The Times - Schools vet parents for Christmas festivities

BBC - Can schools solve all problems?

The Telegraph - Why school league tables must be kept - but reformed

The Telegraph - Calls to cut school holidays to make up for snow days missed

The Telegraph - Schools using dance and fashion to get bored pupils interested in maths

Daily Mail - Home-schooling parents may face criminal record checks

The Guardian - Should parents set up their own state schools?

Law and Order:

The Telegraph - Government accused of encouraging people to report each other for 'hate crimes'

Sunday Times: City bosses fund bid to cut crime

Community cohesion:

The Telegraph - Compulsory savings contributions would soften the blow to the taxpayer

The Telegraph - Race rules could brand top schools failures

The Guardian - In defence of political correctness

The Telegraph - British courts will be able to ignore European human rights rulings

Latest Books

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy and a liberal education for all, or how the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

REMINDER:

Civitas's new office address is:

55 Tufton Street,

London,

SW1P 3QL

Tel: 020 7799 6677

Civitas Media Information: Industrial policy

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:06:01 +0100

Civitas Press Release

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

27 January 2010

Media Information: for immediate release

Time for Turning?
Political parties needn't reinvent the wheel -
on industrial policy they should turn back to Thatcher

Today's political leaders have a strong inclination to resist 'interfering' in the economy, but in the latest Civitas Review, David Merlin-Jones argues that whoever wins the next election, 'would do well to follow in the footsteps of their Thatcherite predecessors and get involved in industry'. ('Time for Turning' p.1)

Thatcherite industrial policy - not laissez faire

Britain is in dire need of a sound industrial policy and in 'Time for Turning' David Merlin-Jones looks back through the history of British manufacturing, extracting crucial lessons for tomorrow's industrial policymaking. He picks out the Thatcherite era as exemplary: following a decade of failed policy from both Conservative and Labour Governments, 'the 1980s demonstrated a stimulating balance between intervention and non-intervention that could act as a template for today'. (p.2)

David Merlin-Jones dispels a common misconception by asserting that Thatcher and her ministers were not in fact laissez-faire in their industrial policy: 'free market doctrine and aid for industry were not mutually exclusive concepts for Thatcher's government and the two could work hand-in-hand'. (p.6)

Subsidising foreign investment

During the Thatcher years great effort was expended to encourage foreign companies to establish factories in Britain. Nissan was attracted to Sunderland in 1984 partly by subsidising the cost of land, which was provided at agricultural prices. Nissan was one of many. By 1989 about 100 Japanese firms were employing 30,000 Britons.

Mrs Thatcher recognised that governments were in an economic contest and acted accordingly, as her remarks to Parliament in 1981 testify:

'We have gained considerable contracts. The Government have operated behind private companies when we have been negotiating contracts overseas. We have achieved a very great measure of success.'

Every other country was helping companies so why not the British Government? She said with some pride that:

'Foreign Governments stand behind their companies when contracts are negotiated. On occasion, they add aid to those contracts; so do we. We are operating on a similar basis and winning contracts in the teeth of international competition.'

Bailing out lame ducks - but only to restore them to fitness

British Steel was competing with foreign companies, some that were nationalised and some subsidised. If the Government had acted as if it were in a free market it would have had to let British Steel go under. Instead it restored the firm to fighting fitness and privatised it when it was ready to stand alone. British Steel was given £450 million in state aid in 1980 and Mrs Thatcher made her motives clear: 'We want the British Steel Corporation to be able to compete with any company in the world, on price, on quality, on delivery'. We know, she said 'there is a lot more money to be earned, because other steel companies are managing to have the output with very, very, far fewer people'. Her government, she said, was investing in the long term ability of British Steel to compete internationally. Once the company was restored to good health the default position of private ownership would be restored.

British Steel was not alone. When the computer firm ICL got into difficulties in 1980 it too was helped, not in this case with government grants but by giving a government guarantee for any private loans.

Even British Leyland received £450 million but this aid was not a crutch to lean on. It was a reward for having revived its fortunes and increased productivity. Thatcher herself told Parliament in 1981 that the grant was 'not to enable them to carry on as they were but to help them to carry out the necessary radical restructuring, so that they, too, can contribute eventually to the recovery.'

Lessons from Thatcher

Policies were intended to encourage competition. The Government did not remove itself from the economy, as some free marketeers assume. Thatcherite policies produced a hybrid landscape where pragmatism trumped ideology. Three policies stand out:

Government grants, loans and subsidies were used to 'buy time' so that companies could restructure and become fit enough to face international competition. But the default position was free enterprise and when companies were ready to compete, private ownership was restored.

The recruitment of foreign manufacturers, sometimes entirely as a result of government intervention. It was a 'revolutionary' approach that 'risked public outcry', but the ultimate aim was British-based firms that could produce world-class products for export. (p.3)

'Golden shares' were used to restrict foreign ownership of strategic industries. Thatcher would never have allowed a foreign owner to shut the Redcar steel plant, recently 'mothballed' by Tata Steel.

For more information ring:

David Merlin-Jones on 07949 811032

Claire Daley 020 7799 6677

David Green 020 7799 6677

Notes for Editors

'Time for Turning? Why the Conservatives need to rethink their industrial policy (if they have one)' by David Merlin-Jones can be downloaded at this link.

Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding and has no links to any political party.

Media Information - Liberal Education

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:05:26 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Liberal Education

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

January 2010

Media information: Embargo 00.01am Monday 4 January 2010

The National Curriculum should guarantee a liberal education for all claims think-tank

Replacing subjects with themes is 'reactionary and anti-progressive'

The political controversies that rage around the school curriculum could be resolved if we re-committed ourselves to the ideal that dominated educational theory for over a century and a half: the provision of a liberal education for all.

Falling social mobility has been the result of watering down the curriculum

The 'old left' was right after all. Experience has shown that the most effective way to narrow the gap between children who are born with advantages and those who are not is to provide a rigorous education for every child. During and since the Blair years this gap has widened. In modern societies knowledge and the power of reasoning rule. Without a good education few can hope to progress to the top of their chosen sphere.

In Liberal Education and the National Curriculum, published by independent think-tank Civitas, David Conway defines a liberal education as an education of which the primary purpose is not training for work, but rather a form of education whose purpose and rationale is to prepare children for life in a free and democratic society. The democratic way of living uniquely demands much of its rank and file members. Such an education was considered, from the days of the Schools of Athens, to reside in its uniquely civilising and humanising capacity. In a remarkable piece of detective work, David Conway has brought together attempts to formulate a curriculum for the vast majority of children in state-sector schools, from Matthew Arnold in 1864 to the 1988 Education Act. There was complete agreement, over a long period of time, about what the basic elements of such an education should be (see Table 6.1, attached).

There was a consensus, amongst educationists of all persuasions, that all children, not just the elite of grammar and public schools, should learn maths, English, science, geography, history and foreign languages. As Justin Shaw writes in his introduction to the book:

'Revolutionary as well as democratic socialists, High Tories and liberal conservatives, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Dissenters and secular humanists were in agreement that a child in a complex, democratic and liberal society ought to be given an education broadly of the kind envisaged by Arnold and his successors.' (p. viii)

However, in recent years the very idea of a national curriculum has come to be regarded as highly controversial. On the one hand, it is claimed that the prescriptive and highly politicised nature of the National Curriculum is failing to treat teachers as professional people, capable of responding to the needs of the children in front of them. The National Curriculum has been blamed for 'dumbing down' and forcing teachers to 'teach to the test'.

On the other hand, it has been even more strongly attacked and undermined by those who say that the National Curriculum, as laid out in 1988 Education Act by the then Secretary of State Kenneth Baker, is overly academic and based on the requirements of middle-class children of the last century. According to John White, emeritus professor of philosophy at London University's Institute of Education, these forms of knowledge are 'a middle-class creation… whose effect… has been to make it difficult for many children… to adjust to a highly academic school culture…' (p. 11). While in the words of Martin Johnson, acting general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), 'most people are not intellectuals' and therefore cannot benefit from a 'curriculum considered necessary for social elites' in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (p. 12).

The success of this campaign has led to calls for scrapping of traditional subjects and their replacement by themes, such as care for the environment.

Creating an educational divide

David Conway describes the attempt to weaken the academic basis of the curriculum as both reactionary and anti-progressive, because it will lead to a widening gap between children educated in independent or grammar schools and the rest - who comprise the majority of the child population. These children will be unable to access the world of high culture, which could transform their lives, because teachers have decided that they should not be challenged by anything beyond the scope of their immediate experience, and that we should elevate 'experience' and 'feelings' over the more or less abstract forms of knowledge associated with academic subjects. However, by proposing:

'that schooling should be based on the children's pre-existing knowledge of the here and now… such an approach clearly involves a radical diminishment in the scope of each child's potential experience… By inviting each child to enter an imagined world which exceeds and leads beyond his or her pre-existing experience, a liberal education offers a liberation from the parochialism, materialism and estrangement of the modern world, and allows a child to experience life through the eyes of other cultures, epochs and worldviews. (pp.xv & xviii) … Contrary to the likes of present-day educationists like Richard Pring and Ivor Goodson, the solace and insight provided by culture was never considered by the likes of Matthew Arnold to be the special preserve of an elite.' (p.xxiv)

A liberal education cannot be child-centred

Professor Conway decries the idea of a child-centred curriculum on the grounds that:

'As understood by the likes of Matthew Arnold and Henry Newman, liberal education is as much about the cultivation of sensibility as about the cultivation of the intellect. Its receipt involves becoming acquainted with great literature as well as science, and so cannot be child-centred, since children cannot be expected to know without appropriate instruction what great literature and art is.' (p.xxiii)

He acknowledges the criticisms of the current National Curriculum, as well as the rigid regime of testing to which it is tied, as overly prescriptive. However, he argues that these criticisms should not necessarily rule out the idea of a national curriculum altogether. The Swedish curriculum runs to only 17 pages, and covers most of the same subjects as its British counterpart, but the Swedish educational model is widely admired and may be imitated by a future Conservative government. What is needed, according to Professor Conway, is not the complete scrapping of the National Curriculum:

'state schools only need freeing from excessive testing, an overly bureaucratised regime of inspection, and excessively prescriptive programmes of study, to be able once again to make provision of liberal education their central purpose.' (p.xxv)

A free and democratic society demands much of its citizens, which is why universal education has been the foremost concern of every genuine liberal. To prepare young people for participation in such a society requires, he argues, 'the only form of education that is able to provide [students] with the best prospects for as good and fulfilled lives as they can possibly enjoy - a liberal education.' (p.112)

For more information contact David Conway: 020 7431 1367 / 07944 196584

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party. Civitas's education research seeks to take an objective view of educational standards in Britain. It aims to offer an improved perspective on how best to deliver equitable and high standards of education for all.

ii. The report, Liberal Education and the National Curriculum, by David Conway is available here.

Health Unit Bulletin, December 2009

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:17:39 +0100

Civitas Health Unit - Bulletin (Dec 09)

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

December 2009

Health Unit Bulletin No.3 - December 2009

Welcome to the third bulletin from the Civitas Health Unit. The aim of this is to inform you of our work and to provide a forum for debate through our health blog.

The unit aims to facilitate informed discussion on health policy issues, bringing fresh thinking to the problems facing the NHS and focusing squarely on what matters: high-quality, best value, universal health care.

In this email: Analysing the NHS market | US health debate | Young Civitas for Medics

Analysing the NHS market

Since 2002, reform in the NHS has focused on (re-)introducing a market in health care; characterised by such initiatives as 'world class commissioning', encouraging pluralism in provision, patient choice and payment-by-results.

However, the benefits that have derived from developing such a market are, as yet, unclear; as is the potential it has to deliver benefits in the future, both in terms of quality and efficiency.

With lean times ahead, it is imperative that competition policy is thoroughly analysed. Currently, the health unit's core research project is focused on the effect marketisation has had on NHS organisations in secondary care to date, and whether existing structures can deliver the value that will be required to pull the health service through 2014.

Our first interim report, Markets in health care: the theory behind the policy, was released last week. This revisits the anticipated benefits of the use of market mechanisms in the NHS; asking on what theory they rest; and where the NHS currently stands. It can be accessed here.

'Perhaps the best discussion of the philosophy, economics and pros and cons of the current status of the NHS I have read.' - David Worskett, Director - NHS Partners Network

'An excellent analysis.'- Julian Le Grand, Richard Titmuss Professor Social Policy, LSE, and former advisor to Tony Blair

The second interim report, a comprehensive literature review of the evidence on markets and competition in the NHS, will be released in February 2010.

The final report, drawing on four months of qualitative work with PCTs, NHS trusts, foundation trusts, the independent and voluntary sectors, will be released in late March/early April 2010.

For more information on, or to help with, this study, please contact: james.gubb@civitas.org.uk.

US health care debate

Health reform in the US is progressing apace; and many comparisons - good and bad - have been drawn with the NHS. However, the evidence suggests that European health systems produce better outcomes than both the US and the UK and, given the insurance structure of the US, such systems may serve as better models for reformers across the Atlantic.

In August, Civitas released a briefing Debate on US health care needs realism, not propaganda highlighting the issues at hand.

You can also access analysis of numerous European health systems here:

France

Germany

Netherlands

Switzerland

Young Civitas for Medics

Civitas has joined forces with a number of inspirational medical students to support a new society 'Young Civitas for Medics', led by students, for students, which aims to plug a gap in the medical curriculum by providing an open and impartial arena for students to learn how the NHS works and to debate the future of health policy.

As Professor Parveen Kumar, President of YCfM and author of the bestselling medical textbook Clinical Medicine, said:

'I have always been unhappy about the knowledge medical students have of the NHS. We often rely on enlightened tutors giving students informal chats about their future working lives within the health service. It's refreshing now to see the lead being taken by students themselves.'

Grace Li, a medical student at Oxford University Medical School, and member of YCfM's steering committee, said:

'Having taken a year out to study health policy, I realise that when medical students graduate and start work in the NHS they often have very little understanding about how the organisation works and what their working lives will involve.

'Knowledge of medicine without knowledge of this will not be enough for tomorrow's doctors to be able to lead and deliver the highest quality health care to patients.'

The organisation now has over 750 medical student members and reps in many medical schools across the country. Two-hundred-and-thirty attended our first event 'A Crash Course in the NHS', at which Julian Le Grand and Martin Marshall, Director of Clinical Quality at the Health Foundation, spoke. The second event, on NICE and cost-effective medicine, will be held on 28 January.

If you are interested in becoming involved in this, advertising it further or sponsorship opportunities, please contact James Gubb (james.gubb@civitas.org.uk).

----------------------------------

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Laura Brereton (laura.brereton@civitas.org.uk) if you have any questions about our research. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list please email unsubscribe@civitas.org.uk.

With best wishes for Christmas and the new year,

James Gubb

----------------------------------

James Gubb

Director - Civitas Health Unit

Tel: 020 7799 6677

www.civitas.org.uk/nhs

james.gubb@civitas.org.uk

Civitas Email Update - November 2009

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:58:48 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

November 2009

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

During the party-conference season the Civitas Health and Family/Education Units took part in fringe meetings in both Brighton and Manchester. Anastasia spoke at the New Statesman’s ‘What’s Culture Worth to Young People in a Recession?’ (Labour Party Conference), and at the Conservative Party Conference at the Parentline Plus/Homestart: ‘The Role of the Volunteer in Supporting Family Relationships.’, Conservative Women’s Organisation/Fawcett Society: ‘What Women Want from Politics in the Recession’ and New Statesman: ‘Can the Education System Change Fast Enough?’ James Gubb spoke at the NHS Confederation for the Conservative Party Conference. David Green was also asked to comment on the Cameron-Osborne dynamic in Manchester, you can read the Guardian article here.

Press Coverage

The debate about A-level standards continued to receive press attention:

Telegraph - A-level grade inflation is just a cruel confidence trick
Gibraltar Chronicle - 'Dumbed down' A-level under fire as pass rates soar, says the Guardian
Guardian - Comment is Free Education League Tables
Crime laws were very high on newspaper agendas this month, as demonstrated by the variety of topics David Green was asked to comment on, including two articles and an interview on the Today programme
NHS discussions were dominated by the US versus UK healthcare systems debate, and there is ongoing interest in James Gubb’s book Putting Patients Last :
Family and social mobility issues such as the baby boom and domestic violence were also under scrutiny and commented on by Anastasia de Waal:
- Telegraph - New baby boom for Britain
- Telegraph - Women guilty of domestic violence
Anastasia also participated in the Cambridge University, 800th Anniversary event, ‘Social Mobility: What's Holding Britain Back?’:
- Guardian - Social Mobility: What's Holding Britain Back?
The Supplementary Schools Project received a full-page article in The Evening Standard by Sarah Richardson, picking up on the success of Civitas’s teaching methods.:
- Evening Standard - How a little extra can go a long way
New Model School

On Thursday 22 October Anthea, Lady Craigmyle visited the new building of Maple Walk School in Roundwood Park, North-west London, to declare it officially open. The new school has been built with the support of the Craigmyle Charitable Trust, which has supported the New Model School company since its inception. The teachers and children moved into the new Maple Walk in September, and it has proved extremely popular with parents, children and staff. The school now has years reception to year 4, and will thus be a fully-fledged primary school in two years' time. The New Model School has two further schools that opened in September: Stephenson School in Kensal Town and Faraday School in Trinity Buoy Wharf.

Latest Books

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy, or why the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

More Information

Civitas Email Update - September 2009

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:12:11 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

September 2009

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Last month the Civitas Health Unit published a report, Straight A's? based on a nationwide survey of A-level teachers. Specifically addressing the rising number of A-grades achieved, A-level teachers' views were sought on the strengths and weaknesses of today's A-levels, in an attempt to move the education debate on from the annual row over exam standards. Senior A-level teachers such as heads of sixth form were chosen to provide insights into their personal views. Please click here to read a full PDF version of the report.

Press Coverage

Anastasia de Waal's report on A-levels received blanket coverage from the press, from the front page of the Metro to the Manchester Evening News:

In a related vein on education policy, the Supplementary Schools Project received a full-page article in The Sun by Trevor Kavanagh, picking up on the success of Civitas's teaching methods. Anastasia de Waal was also quoted by The Telegraph on the topic of English becoming a second language many children according to official figures:

Putting Patients Last sparked further debate over the NHS, particularly as US politicians continue to broach the subject in lieu of President Obama's health reform proposals. Taking this issue head on in The Yorkshire Post, James Gubb argued against the interest-politics pervading the healthcare debate:

David Green toook part in a short debate about youth crime on the Today programme. You can listen again here:

Barnardos and youth crime.

Colin Brazier referred back to his Civitas Review article about large families in a blog for Sky News, in which he questions the assumption of the high social contribution made by large families. His second blog post questions the media hysteria surrounding 'Baby Boom Britain' by analysing all-important fertility rates:

Robert Whelan was quoted in The Daily Mail article about Sir David Attenborough's public stance on population control to stem climate change:

Daily Mail - Attenborough joins campaign to curb world's population

Latest Books and Great Offers

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy, or why the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

More Information

Civitas Email Update - August 2009

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:39:48 +0100

Civitas Email Update

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

August 2009

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

This month Civitas published Nations Choose Prosperity: Why Britain needs an industrial policy and Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure. We also released an online report by Professor Mervyn Stone entitled, How not to beat the BNP! A critique of the EHRC report on social housing allocation.

Nations Choose Prospertiy is edited by Ruth Lea and features contributions from Brendan Barber, Ian Brinkley, Ian Fells, David Green, Ian Peters, John Philpott, Alan Reece, Robert Rowthorn and Candida Whitmill. The report considers the decline of Britain's manufacturing base and the effect this has had on the stability and prosperity of Britain. You can read further details in the press release or see below for details on how to purchase the book.

Putting Patients Last is by Peter Davies a GP from Halifax and James Gubb of the Civitas health unit. The publication follows the influential text by Donald R. Keough, the former president of the Coca-Cola Company, The Ten Commandments of Business Failure and argues that the NHS shares similar characteristics with failing companies: they stop taking risks, become inflexible, isolate themselves, assume infallibility, play the game close to the foul line, don't take time to think, put their faith in outside consultants, love bureaucracy, send mixed messages, are afraid of the future and lose their passion for work. You can find out more by reading the press release or see below for details on how to purchase the book.

Press Coverage

The following article commented on our most recent release, Nations Choose Prosperity:

Putting Patients Last received a large amount of press attention:

Forbes - Obama and lessons from the NHS

Press interest in Sharia Law, or 'One Law for All' continues with the following report:

The Times - Even Infidels are turning to Sharia law

HOW NOT TO BEAT THE BNP! was covered by the Spectator and the Telegraph:

The following links include David Green's comment piece in the Telegraph on equality, and a quote from David on the subject of the school boy who was arrested for bullying. There is also an article on the acceptability of schools being run for profit by companies, and finally Colin Brazier discusses extended families following a report he wrote for Civitas on the topic.

The following links include Anastasia de Waal's comment piece in The Guardian on the new government figures identifying a 'huge gender gap' in young children's abilities, and a quotation from her on the BBC News website.

Latest Books and Great Offers

To find out why Britain so badly needs an industrial policy, or why the NHS is failing its patients, visit our online book shop by clicking here.

Faraday School

The latest in the New Model School company's series of low-cost independent primary schools, the Faraday School, is pleased to announce it has appointed a Head. Mrs Sarah Counter will be joining the school when it opens in September. Mrs Counter has a wealth of experience from across the education sector. A graduate of Trinity College, London, she is currently Head at Milbourne Lodge Junior School, a non-selective independent school in Surrey, where she has been working since 2002.

Mrs Counter has a track record of pioneering and developing educational systems and has worked with schools and colleges spanning all age-groups. She was Educational Consultant for the establishment of the first Technology Academy in Middlesborough. She is also a qualified Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) Team Inspector, with further additional training specialising in Early Years Foundation Stage Inspection. Mrs Counter is a member of the Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS) and of the Independent Schools Association (ISA). Mrs Counter is a founding trustee for the creation of a tertiary college of education in Zambia and is also a trustee of the African Learning Partnership, which supports schools and community agencies in areas of severe disadvantage. She has a love of music and is a member of several choirs. Mrs Counter is also an active member of her local church. The New Model School company is delighted to be able to appoint someone with such outstanding experience and enthusiasm as the founding Head of Faraday School.

If you would like more information about the Faraday School, including details on how to register and a map of its location in Canning Town, please visit www.newmodelschool.co.uk. This link also provides information on our two other schools, Maple Walk and Stephenson, which are situated in North West London.

More Information

President Obama should look to Europe, not the NHS

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:22:54 +0100

Civitas Press Release: President Obama should look to Europe, not the NHS

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

August 2009

Media information: embargo immediate release

President Obama should look to Europe, not the NHS

Debate on US health care needs realism, not propaganda.

The claims by both sides in the emerging furore on US health system reform and the value of government-run systems such as the NHS are clouded in ideology and misrepresentation, according to independent think tank Civitas.

The NHS is not 'evil' (Sarah Palin), nor leaves the old and disabled "to die" (IBD), nor something 'not to be wished on anyone' (Daniel Hannan).

There are plenty of people who will have received world-class health care from the NHS and its staff and - as the Twitter campaign £welovethenhs shows - are very grateful for it.
The NHS is not 'loved more than words can say' (Sarah Brown), nor is it a service where 'quality is as good as anywhere in the world; and where outcomes are as good as anywhere in the world' (Andrew Lansley).

In an individual ward or hospital this claim may stand up, but across the board it does not. The evidence suggests European health systems outperform both the NHS and the US. (see table below)

'The NHS is neither deity nor dinosaur' said James Gubb, Director of the Civitas Health Unit, 'but if the United States is serious about health reform and providing universal coverage, it should look to Europe, where systems are more competitive, responsive and patient-led than the NHS; and where coverage is based on insurance, not taxation.'

The need for reform

All sides acknowledge the US health system is in big trouble:

On most system-wide measures of health outcomes, the US fares poorly vis-a-vis other countries. On mortality amenable to health care - deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care - the US is the worst performing in the developed world (see table below).
Over the last 35 years health spending in the US has risen by 9.8 per cent versus 7.2 per cent elsewhere in the US economy, which has made health care unaffordable to many. Forty-eight million people are currently uninsured.
Employers are often burdened with a large part of the cost of health insurance, making them uncompetitive in world markets. Health care costs add over $1,500 to the manufacturer's cost of every car made in the US, for example.
If governments were forced to report on their financial statements the liabilities they face resulting from contractual commitments to provide health care for retired employees, nearly every city and town in the US would be bankrupt.¹

Something, clearly, needs to be done. There are lessons the US can learn from the NHS:

Universality.
In a free society, out of compassion for fellow human beings and to give people an equal chance to participate fully in society, we demand that everyone has access to a decent package of health care.
Universality has wider efficiency gains, through spreading risk - just as having mandatory car insurance does.
General practice. It is widely acknowledged that family practice medicine is in under-supply in the US, resulting in fragmented care and more serious problems cropping up further down the line, particularly for patients with chronic diseases and multiple conditions.
Cost-effectiveness evaluations by NICE provide a good impression of value, which is essential to judging the efficacy of treatment.

'Lessons' to avoid

But the NHS is far from the 'perfect' health system. The outcomes it engineers, in terms of equity, patient satisfaction and health, may be better than the US, but typically are worse than Europe:

In addition:

Inefficiency is rife. NHS productivity has fallen by 4 per cent over the past decade, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Funding gaps are in evidence, resulting in rationing of treatment. Just today (14 August 2009) it was reported that some 1,000 cancer patients were denied drugs that may be clinically effective.
Health inequalities have actually widened under the Labour government. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived areas in England is nearly ten years (for men) and has increased in recent times.

As Peter Davies and James Gubb argued in a recent Civitas publication, Putting Patients Last, the 'customer' of the NHS too often is not, in fact, the patient, but the minister.

With the government having a monopoly on funding and resource allocation, and feeling the constant need to intervene to be seen as 'accountable' to the taxpayer, success is judged more by meeting central targets than by the end-goal of providing high quality care for the patient.

European ideas

In an ICM poll in 2006, 65 per cent of respondents agreed the NHS was the right idea when it was introduced in 1948, but that Britain has changed and we need a different system now; 80 per cent, for example, agreed it shouldn't matter whether hospitals or surgeries are run by public, private or voluntary organisations, so long as everyone including the poorest has access. Perhaps it is the ideals of solidarity and universality that attract such support, rather than the NHS itself?

There is increasing recognition that we need health systems that are competitive, responsive and consumer-driven, with clear metrics of value (cost and health outcomes).

The challenge for the US is to embrace these values within a universal insurance framework. The NHS does not provide such a model, and it is questionable whether the solution will require a public plan to compete with private insurers, as President Obama is proposing. Such a role for government is not considered necessary in the most competitive universal, insurance-based systems in Europe, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland.

Instead, they rely on certain core principles:

All individuals (not employers as in the US) are obliged to pay into a health insurance plan offered by a variety of insurers; who can compete on price, deductibles and service offerings. But:
Insurers are obliged to accept all the applicants that choose them;
The government both defines the mandatory minimum package, and pays for top ups for those on low incomes or with excessive health risks.

Crucially, this ensures the consumer - the patient - controls the purse strings, not the government or, for that matter, employers.

As Regina Herzlinger, Nancy R. McPherson professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School, has said "the Swiss system provides important lessons for the United States about consumer-driven health care."

James Gubb, director of the health unit at Civitas said: 'Gordon Brown's twittering, David Cameron's call for "pride in the NHS" and Daniel Hannan's claims that he "wouldn't wish the NHS on anyone" all miss the point slightly. Outcomes are better in Europe; and, with a system already based on insurance, the United States would do well to look across the channel for solutions.'

1. Christensen, C, Grossman, J, Hwang, J, The Innovator's Prescription: A disruptive solution for health care, McGraw-Hill, 2009

For more information contact James Gubb on: 020 7799 6677 / 079 3024 3570

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

ii. You can find a link to Civitas briefings on various European health systems, including the Netherlands and Switzerland at: http://www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/health_systems.php.

iii.'Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure' by Peter Davies and James Gubb was published by Civitas in July 2009, at £10.25 inc. pp. ISBN: 978-1906837099.

100% of A-level teachers think rise in A grades NOT down to more able students, survey reveals

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:14:10 +0100

Civitas Press Release: 100% of A-level teachers think rise in A grades NOT down to more able students, survey reveals

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

August 2009

Media information: embargo 00.01am Monday 17th August 2009

100% of A-level teachers think rise in A grades NOT down to more able students, survey reveals

Senior A-level teachers speak out on why today's A-level grades are rising

As the number of A grades achieved is set to rise again when results are released later this week, a report from independent think-tank Civitas, Straight A's?, based on a nationwide survey of 150 randomly selected senior A-level teachers, reveals that:

0% of A-level teachers surveyed think that the increase in A grades is down to more able students

Only 4% think better quality teachers are the main reason for an increase in A grades at A-level

Instead, the findings show that 80% of teachers who expressed a view think they themselves would have achieved higher overall grades had they taken today's A-levels - and just 15% think they would have achieved the same set of A-level grades.

'That such a small proportion of teachers think they would have got the same overall A-level grades within today's modular system as they did under the linear system strongly suggests that the A-level results of today are not comparable with those of the past. That the majority of teachers think they would have achieved higher grades today strongly suggests that it is easier to do well today,' commented Anastasia de Waal, Director of Family and Education at Civitas and author of the report.

The general consensus is that the system today allows the same calibre of students to achieve higher grades. Teachers were either baldly negative in their assessment of this situation or more euphemistic:

'It's total nonsense that things have improved.' Head of Sixth Form, South East

'The A-level is not aimed at the same people as it was 30 years ago: a larger cohort must have easier exams or too many would fail. You could train a monkey to do the questions today!' Director of A-levels, North West

'I think the A-level is possibly more accessible today.' Head of Sixth Form, North West

'A-levels have been opened up to more people.'Head of Sixth Form, West Midlands

Whether teachers feel frustrated or consider arrangements to be 'fairer', success is seen to be more achievable today.

'The system is an absolute shambles, the standard of candidates is very low - it's a national disgrace.' Head of Sixth Form, East Midlands

'There's a better chance to reach what students need to succeed.' Director of A-levels, South West

Even the comments of those defending the current A-levels were revealing:

'The style of learning is very different - but that's not the same as them being easier. The modular system is the most effective way to get more people into university, it makes university much more accessible.' Director of A-levels, North West

Specifically, the majority of teachers surveyed regard the increase in top grades to be down to students knowing more about what will be examined:

43% think that the main reason for more top A-level grades is that students are more informed about what's in the exam

8% think the main reason is that the syllabus is more closely linked to the exams

'Very explicit guidance is given to students about what will be in the exams.' Head of A-levels, East Anglia

'There is a lot of information from examiners today. It's easier to get an A than ten years ago.' Director of A-levels, West Midlands

Generally the exams are seen to be the focal point of A-levels today. A number of teachers commented on the irony of the fact that whenever they went 'off course' (literally) in discussion around their subject, they were 'reprimanded' by students; very different, commented one head of sixth form, from the days of deliberate attempts to distract the teacher.

Re-sits rife

'It's the chance to re-take - I'm very sure that this is the key to success today.' Head of Sixth Form, South East

Teachers' views that they would get higher grades in today's A-levels are strongly supported by their estimates of the impact re-sitting has had on their students' grades:

71% of teachers who expressed a view estimated that 50% or more of their last year's A-level students did at least one re-sit

69% of teachers who expressed a view estimated that 50% or more of those students who re-sat achieved a higher overall A-level grade as a result

While re-sits impact positively on results, there is concern about their impact on learning:

'It's not good from the point of education, it's repeating ad nauseam.' Head of Sixth Form, London

'There is a real problem with re-sits and the re-sit culture - I would abolish them. Students are revising for re-sits when they should be focusing on the current course.' Head of Sixth Form, Yorkshire and the Humber

Are A-levels becoming defunct?

'Teachers and students are understandably riled by the annual criticism of A-levels, but the point is not that students and teachers aren't working - it's that the system isn't,' commented Anastasia de Waal.

As one head of sixth form commented:

'It's unfortunate because it's not students' faults - they can only do what they're given. The media hype is unfair on students working their guts out.' Head of Sixth Form, London, North West

A key concern is that results are not regarded as reflecting students' ability today.

'The problem is distinguishing between the good and the hard working students - i.e. the diligent and the super clever.' Director of A-levels, North West

'I would love to see exams where they gauge a true reflection of students' abilities rather than their preparation for the exams.' Head of A-levels, South West

The A-level has become a means to an end - about grades for university, not knowledge and understanding. The irony is that universities are now rejecting A-level results as reliable indicators. A-levels are therefore running the risk of becoming defunct.

Recommendations

The shift from the linear system's one set of 'sudden death' exams, to 'spreading the load' modular exams is in principle welcome. The merit of the modular A-level is that it allows students to convey their knowledge and understanding of the course, rather than their ability to perform in an exam. The problem, however, is that today the entire course has become centred on exam performance, to the detriment of learning.

Scrap re-sits: The best way to end the current pressure, devaluation and teaching to the exam at A-level is to scrap re-sits. Other than narrowing the course to revision, the re-sits are lining the pockets of the exam boards. Moreover the cost of re-sits for students may mean that schools with a more affluent intake do more re-sits and therefore get better results.

End perverse interests for exam boards: Examining boards should not set the syllabus and the exams. It should not be in the interests of those setting the syllabus to ensure that students achieve high grades in the exam. A-level exams for a variety of syllabuses should therefore be set by a single independent body. What is to be avoided are syllabuses and exams designed to maximise exam grades rather than learning. By having one independent body set the exams there would be no interest in facilitating performance, on the contrary, there would be an interest in ensuring consistency and comparability. Exam boards are commercial bodies which earn income from exam fees. By making exams more 'accessible', providers can attract more providers to sign up for their exams; the more demanding boards, in turn, risk losing 'market share'. A ruling party's wish to claim credit for improving exam performance provides a perverse incentive to co-operate with the lowering of standards by stealth. The remedy is a single exam-setting body, insulated from political pressure, with a legally enforceable duty to maintain an agreed standard over time.

For more information contact Anastasia de Waal: 020 7799 6677 / 07930 354 234

Notes for Editors

ii. The report, Straight A's? A-level teachers' views on today's A-levels by Anastasia de Waal is available here.

iii. Details of survey:

Senior A-level teachers denotes heads of sixth form and equivalent in further education and sixth form colleges
150 heads of sixth form or equivalent surveyed, between 29th June and 24th July 2009
73% of teachers surveyed have taught for 10 years or more
Providers surveyed cover the following regions: East Anglia (18), East Midlands (20), London (16), North (Yorkshire and the Humber) (7), North East (10), North West (24), South East (17), South West (22), West Midlands (16)

Revolution in culture required to stop NHS failing

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:05:32 +0100

Civitas Press Release: Revolution in culture required to stop NHS failing as collection of businesses

Institute for the Study of Civil Society

July 2009

Media information: embargo 00.01am Thursday 30th July

Revolution in culture required to stop NHS failing as collection of businesses

The NHS follows every known rule that guarantees failure in the business world, according to a new report from independent think-tank Civitas.

NHS organisations are keeping the 'Ten Commandments of Business Failure', first drawn up by Donald R. Keough, the former Chairman and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, that 'so consistently lead to failure they should be written in stone'.¹

In Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure, Peter Davies and James Gubb argue that the NHS has been treated as a business, or series of businesses, by successive waves of government reform, with patients as the 'customers' whose needs are to be paramount.

There is much to be said for importing the disciplines of the private sector into public sector enterprises, but Gubb and Davies argue that it has all backfired owing to a deep-seated reluctance by Whitehall to let go of control. The 'customer' of NHS 'businesses' is not, in fact, the patient, but the minister.

NHS organisations remain 'isolated and risk-averse', consumed with internal processes, bureaucracy, and conforming to the latest government initiative; rather than focusing squarely on the end-goal of providing high quality care to the patient.

'Blind faith in structure, process and satisfying government has made businesses immune to what is happening on the ground, where the world of people, cultures and emotion make the real difference. More of the same command-and-control attitude will not pull the NHS through the recession.' (p.83)

How to keep the ten commandments of business failure

1. Stop taking risks. A 2006 study of change capability by the Office of Government Commerce gave the NHS a score of just two out of five points for seven of the nine categories assessed.

2. Be inflexible. Businesses are hamstrung by state control over factors of production: staff pay is set centrally; capital expenditure is constrained by the DH; the National Programme for IT is a top-down programme; and NICE increasingly decides what treatment can be offered. Local initiative is crowded out.

3. Isolate yourself. Health care is conducted in silos, with patients too often left in limbo - particularly between primary and secondary care. Emergency hospital admissions for chronic and acute conditions usually managed in primary care have rocketed in recent years, from 371.57 admissions per 100,000 patients in 2002/03 for acute conditions to 423.40 in 2006/07.

4. Assume infallibility. Politicians constantly refer to the NHS as 'the envy of the world', but the outcomes it engineers are worse than other universal health systems in Europe. On the latest figures, the UK ranked 16th out of 19 industrialised nations in terms of amenable mortality; and 13th out of 30 European countries in terms of patient satisfaction.

5. Play the game close to the foul line. Targets have ruled the roost, pushing organisations to the edge, often to the neglect of patient care. The four-hour A&E target has led to patients being moved to clinical decision units; waiting in ambulances; unnecessary admissions; premature discharge and the miscoding of data.

6. Don't take time to think. The past ten years has seen a plethora of incoherent initiatives and policy reviews, decreasing the ability of senior managers to display leadership, think and positively affect the delivery of services; and left governance confused and void of focus.

7. Put faith in (external) consultants. NHS organisations now spend £350m on external consultants per year, but their effectiveness is unproven. Of the nine NHS trusts in receipt of management consultant-led turnaround teams in 2005/06, three remained blacklisted as 'financially challenged' in 2007/08.

8. Love bureaucracy. The NHS Confederation estimates that 69 bodies currently regulate, inspect and demand information from NHS organisations, many asking similar questions. In secondary care organisations, only 58 per cent of this is considered useful for any internal purpose.

9. Send mixed messages. Only 69 per cent of the 290,000 NHS staff surveyed by the Healthcare Commission in 2008 said they had clear objectives and just 39 per cent felt that they worked in well structured teams.

10. Be afraid of the future. Fear that the NHS budget will not stretch to meet demand has led to initiative after initiative that has left clinicians feeling mistrusted and powerless.

And as a result lose passion for work. In 2008, just 52 per cent of NHS staff said they would recommend their trust as a place to work. Unmotivated staff = unhappy patients.

These are businesses set up to serve the state rather than patients. They do not know who their customers really are.

Developing a culture of service

A change of emphasis is urgently needed as the recession bites. As the former government minister-turned-adviser, Lord Darzi of Denham recently wrote in the British Medical Journal:

'If we want a world-class healthcare system we need to dedicate ourselves to constantly questioning and challenging what we do... I know from my own experience that we will not realise our ambitions if we simply do the minimum asked of us.' (BMJ 2009;339:b2970)

This is the right sentiment. But it will require a revolution in culture, both in government and in fledgling NHS businesses. Decades of priorities being determined by the state, rather than by patients, is not an easy legacy to overturn.

As Donald R. Keough, who writes a foreword to the book, says:

'It's so easy [for organisations] to lose sight of the customer, to think dispassionately about an amorphous mass called the market or market segment. There are, except as statistical abstractions, no such things as market segments. There are only people. They have faces.'

According to report authors Peter Davies and James Gubb:

'It is time for NHS organisations to start backing people rather than processes. It is time for the government to stop over-estimating the importance of legislation, crude measurement and regulation as markers of success and put faith in power of frontline organisations to drive quality... The autonomy associated with a more business-like framework means nothing if all it is used for is finding more innovative ways of meeting central targets.' (p.xv)

¹Donald Keough, The Ten Commandments for Business Failure, New York: Penguin Books, 2008

For more information contact: 020 7799 6677

'Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure' by Peter Davies and James Gubb is published by Civitas, at £10.25 inc. pp. ISBN: 978-1906837099. Buy from Amazon.

Notes for Editors

i. Civitas is an independent social policy think-tank. It receives no state funding either directly or indirectly and has no links to any political party.

ii. Peter Davies is a GP Principal at Keighley Road Surgery, Illingworth, Halifax and a Yorkshire Faculty Representative on the Royal College of General Practitioners' Council. James Gubb is Director of the Health Unit at Civitas. The views expressed in the publication are the authors' own.

iii.'Putting Patients Last: How the NHS keeps the ten commandments of business failure' is inspired by Donald R. Keough's bestselling book 'The Ten Commandments of Business Failure' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ten-Commandments-Business-Failure/dp/0141039221).

Newsletter RSS Feed

Civitas Email Update - September 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Crime and Justice

Are we a punitive nation?

Should we have fewer prison sentences?

Other criminal justice topics

Education

A-level resits

Vocational Qualifications

Other education topics

Family

Health

Other issues

REMINDER:

Media Info: Hidden costs of community sentences over custody exposed

Media information: EMBARGO: 0001 hrs, Saturday 28 August

Report exposes hidden costs of community sentences over custody

Misguided assumptions

Misconceptions about prison

Incapacitation impact of prison ignored by official statistics

Community sentences versus prison

For more information contact:

Notes for Editors

Media Info: Practically irrelevant: 'vocational' qualifications in schools not fit for purpose

Media Briefing: EMBARGO: 0001 hrs, Tuesday 24 August 2010

Practically irrelevant: 'vocational' qualifications in schools not fit for purpose

Rise in 'vocational' qualifications

Designed for weak students

Practically irrelevant

Impoverished curriculum

Disunited learning

Forfeiting basic education

Devastating vocational training - as well as opportunities

Ending 'equivalence' insufficient

Notes for Editors

Civitas Policy Briefing: Will Nick Clegg escape the Social Mobility Myths?

Policy Briefing

Will Nick Clegg escape the Social Mobility Myths?

By Peter Saunders

Parenting

A closed-shop society?

Opportunity is already extensive

Why middle class children out-perform working class children

The fallacy of social engineering

Focus on the welfare underclass

Policy implications

For more information contact:

Notes for Editors

Civitas Email Alert - August 2010

Email Update

Having trouble reading the email? Try our website.

Civil Liberties

Freedom of religion and the new blasphemy

More comments on civil liberties

The Economy

'Green' energy policy - manufacturing the next economic decline

Seminar - Preventing the Next Banking Collapse

Health

Can GP's deal with commissioning?

Seminar - Objections to the NHS Market

Other health topics

Family and Education

Academies

Other education coverage

Family

Law and Order

Should we have fewer prison sentences?

Wasting Police Time

Other issues

REMINDER:

Online Briefing: Latest International Comparisons of Crime in OECD Countries

Media Information: immediate release

Crime Briefing

How does our crime rate compare?

Are we a punitive society?

For more information contact:

Notes for Editors

Media Information - Blasphemy is back!

Media Information:
immediate release

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Monday 19 July 2010

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01hrs Monday 12 July 2010

Energy intensive industries to be hardest hit
- with a domino effect on downstream industries

Media Information:
EMBARGO: 00.01 Tuesday 01 June 2010