Speeches this week from two very different Conservative figures ask, but don’t really answer this crucial question.

First, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who is proving (surprisingly) eager to free us from Nanny’s grasp.

The dust had barely settled from his attack on Jamie Oliver inspired mandatory school menus before Mr Lansley went on air again to pledge that the NHS would stop telling people what to eat.

He prefers to “support communities and families to make healthier choices rather than dictate what they should and should not do.” Quite right too.

It’s not entirely clear what will happen if people don’t make “healthy choices” – the Health Secretary said he wants to “nudge” rather than “nanny” and the vision of a greater public health role for the NHS suggests that this will not be a hands-off, judgment-free zone. Maybe less stick and (literally) more carrot?

On a completely different but no less problematic front, Professor Niall Ferguson argued in the Telegraph this week that bankers needed to rediscover morality, rather than having it thrust upon them in the shape of more government regulation.

Promoting his new biography of Siegmund Warburg, Niall emphasised the ethical framework underpinning Warburg’s work.

In Niall’s words: “The real lesson of history is that regulation alone is not the key to financial stability.

Indeed, over-complicated regulation can be the disease it purports to cure, by encouraging a culture of box-ticking “compliance” rather than individual moral judgment.” Cautioning against a rush to more regulation in a fruitless bid to prevent further crises, Niall calls instead for better education.

The question left unanswered in both cases is how to shape that education (whether on nutrition or financial ethics) so that it does not become simply another branch of the nanny state. Siegmund Warburg’s ethics were rooted in his faith and culture.

That was his “education.”Here on the centre-right I guess we all believe in responsibility – but not all of us believe in God. If we are to let go of nanny, we need a shared morality and value system.

Yet without the certainties of faith, that remains quite hard to achieve. What do you think?

The government is evidently keen to summon up a mood of national common purpose to take the tough decisions necessary to put our fiscal house in order.

It is in this spirit of solidarity and collective responsibility that the Treasury announced that it is to consult the public during the summer over which budgets should be cut.

What are we to make of this proposal for public participation in deciding how to reduce the deficit?

It is easy to be cynical. This is of course merely a consultation exercise and the real decisions will be made by ministers. It is unlikely to give people the chance to question the government’s overall strategy, such as the contested balance between cuts, tax rises and growth.

Indeed the whole thing has a nakedly political purpose – by letting us ‘have our say’, the coalition can later turn around and tell us that we all have blood on our hands.

But let’s suspend cynicism for a moment. In principle, public involvement in major national policy decisions is a good thing. How might it be done? What about a Simon Cowell-style solution?

As a nation we have fallen in love with TV talent contests such as the X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. Similarly, the leaders debates, talent shows of sorts engaged millions of people who would not normally watch political programmes. A series of televised plebiscites on what we should cut – which the SDLP’s Mark Durkan has already dubbed ‘The Axe Factor’ – would unquestionably engage the public.

Nevertheless, snap polls rarely make for good decisions – particularly where the issues are so complex and the stakes so high. The best political decisions are made following processes of deliberation, during which the consequences can be properly thought through.

There are tried and tested methods for involving the public in more deliberative participatory processes. Participatory budgeting has been employed in some towns in the UK, such as Salford and Newcastle, as a way of involving people in making decisions about their local council’s budget.

Where these processes have engaged hundreds of people their results have carried an important legitimacy with them, meaning that local authorities have respected their decisions. But these processes work because they take place locally, where people can easily participate. It is hard to see a participatory budget working at the national level. PB processes also take time, something which Osborne tells us we do not have.

Another way of involving the public in complex decisions is to set up citizens’ juries. These involve randomly selecting around 10 citizens to sit and deliberate over important public policy decisions. They have been used to inform planning processes and to help decide which drugs should be made available on the NHS.

But while these are deliberative in a way a snap opinion poll is not, decisions taken by just 10 randomly selected citizens are unlikely to be seen as legitimate by the millions affected by them. Moreover juries are generally most useful on questions where there is a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ judgement to be made rather than the hugely complex matter of balancing the government’s books.

Participation in democratic decisions is a good thing – but on this subject and on this time frame, a genuine process looks implausible. The coalition has already told us that the decisions will be made by a ‘star chamber’ of key ministers anyway. Perhaps they should just get on with it.

This article was first published in progressonline.org

Even popular television programmes like Strictly Come Dancing and the X-Factor have got themselves into controversies over questions of age, gender and sexuality.

Identity has, of course, always mattered to people, and always will – but the intensity of these debates, and the range of identity-related questions being discussed, is notable.

This is largely due to two trends. First, increased economic competition and the decline of traditional industries have produced processes of ‘individualisation’ leading to the weakening of traditional loyalties based around class and place.

Second, processes of globalisation have led to unprecedented movements of people, capital and goods around the world, breaking down homogenous national cultures.

Both of these trends have brought with them advantages in terms of greater individual liberty and cultural diversity – but they have also clearly dislocated many people’s sense of who they are, and produced increased insecurity and anxiety.

For the left this has led many to question our traditional approach to managing questions of identity in the public realm: multiculturalism – a framework that gives public recognition to the many different identities that make up our society. Trevor Phillips famously said that multiculturalism had left us “sleep walking into segregation.”

Philips was wrong, and attacking a straw man caricature of multiculturalism. A multiculturalism that gives respect to all and recognises diversity should be defended to the hilt. Where we got it wrong was that we were too insensitive to the need for interaction between different groups – leading to a situation in some parts of the North West where Ted Cantle concluded people were living “parallel lives.” The left should defend multiculturalism – but fight segregation.

In part that effort requires work at the level of social capital and social networks: supporting and sustaining those spaces where people can meet and interact whatever their background. This includes the institutions of local civic society, participation in social movements, comprehensive schools – as well as shops, parks and local pubs.

But there is also a job to do at the level of identity as well – multiculturalism must be complemented by and nested within shared civic identities, both local and national. Typically the British left gets queasy when it comes to national identity – we were of course an imperial power and many of the symbols of nation are wrapped up in that.

Nevertheless a shared sense of common obligation and citizenship is vital – both for community cohesion, but also for support for redistribution through the welfare state.

But which nation? For the English there is the problem of disentangling two national identities barely distinguished – something which is much clearer in Scotland and Wales. The left has typically favoured narratives of Britishness, simply because Britain is a state, whereas England is not. Britishness has always, therefore, had a more straightforwardly civic cast compared to Englishness. Scottish and Welsh national identity have managed to become inclusive civic identities precisely because those countries have political institutions with which all citizens can identify.

So what do we do? The English left needs to reclaim English identity, otherwise there is a dangerous vacuum in which all sorts of resentments over devolution, and immigration get channelled through the prism of a reactionary and belligerent Englishness.

We all know the signs of this – and ippr research has found that concerns about immigration are often articulated through a sense of aggrieved English nationalism.

This is not to argue for an English parliament, but rather for the left to re-discover its radical English heritage and defend our interpretation of our national history against that of the right.

It is also a call for Labour in office to give some institutional or cultural recognition to England, so we can promote the same kind of shared civic identity that has been so successfully fostered in Scotland and Wales.

Rick Muir is a senior research fellow at ippr and the co-author of The Power of Belonging. Identity, citizenship and community cohesion

But while it is understandable to want to look to the future, it is also important to reflect on New Labour’s lasting contribution to progressive politics.

During 13 years in power, the Blair and Brown governments made significant changes that improved life in Britain – but, of course, they also made mistakes. The lessons from this era need to be learnt by progressive politicians.

New Labour’s overarching ambition in 1997 was to ensure economic stability and throw off the reputation for fiscal incompetence that had dogged past Labour governments. Policy was focused on investment in education and employability to enable individuals to thrive in a largely unregulated capitalist economy.

Social justice and economic efficiency were mutually reinforcing; growth was a prerequisite to an effective social policy; and flourishing citizens were necessary for a strong economy.

Where there was a concern with tackling disadvantage, it was poverty and social exclusion that mattered rather than inequality. The policy was to have an ­income floor established through the statutory minimum wage and labour market mobility. It was argued that little could realistically be done about overall income inequality.

New Labour’s early economic management eschewed tax and spend in favour of wealth creation: economic growth rather than tax receipts generated resources to improve the lives of poor people.  New Labour actively sought to woo the City and establish itself as the party of enterprise. As such, it fully endorsed a lightly ­regulated financial sector.

Ten years of unbroken growth seemed to justify this approach – but then came the crash.  So where has this left us? At one level, New Labour altered socio-economic policy for a generation.  An obvious example is the minimum wage, which has succeeded in providing a vital buffer against a rampant free market without threatening employment levels.

Another example is child poverty – half a million children were taken out of relative income poverty and almost 2 million were taken out of absolute income poverty. Despite the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition’s proposed welfare cuts, there is no question of them rolling back the New Labour focus on tackling poverty as a ­policy priority.

On redistribution, the policy focus was virtually entirely on Tax Credits and benefits; the tax system was not made fairer under New Labour until very recently. And these policies were unable to tackle inequality – which affected not just income, but also social mobility and  levels of wellbeing.

The lesson is that using tax and benefits policy to mop up the impact of a global economy will only get you so far. If we are to overcome this challenge it will involve intervening more radically in the economic power and assets that individuals have in the first place.

The crash highlighted the ascendancy of the financial sector in our economy, and that manufacturing was moving in the opposite direction. Earnings galloped at the top of the income scale, providing a growing contribution to the public coffers, while at the same time widening the inequality gap. By the time Labour left office, it had moved into firmer regulation and to taxing incomes at the top. And the fiscal stimulus contained a strong element of sustainable green investment and jobs.

But the challenge now is to develop an economic model that relies neither on unfettered markets nor on old-fashioned Keynesian demand management. A new form of capitalism is called for, one based on a greater diffusion of power.

In the reform of public services, the priority for New Labour was to reverse the many years of underinvestment. The flow of new cash was accompanied by a suite of targets aimed at ensuring accountability and value for money. New Labour’s approach was characterised by top-down initiatives from the centre, combined with tough performance measures – symbolised, for example, by the introduction of numeracy and ­literacy hours in schools.

This ‘command and control’ approach to public services was combined with significant investment – total managed expenditure increased from 36% of GDP in 1999/00 to over 43% in 2008/09. And it yielded major initial benefits.

These included:

• reduced hospital waiting lists;

• improvements in child mortality and survival rates for heart disease and cancer;

• better exam results;

• the narrowing of the results gap between schools in poor and affluent areas;

• infrastructure improvements.

By contrast Labour also drove reforms through choice and competition, followed by a focus on personalisation of services and citizen empowerment. It became clear that record levels of investment had not yielded the changes that New Labour had sought and public sector productivity had not increased in line with additional funding. Many entrenched social problems remained despite investment and reform.

Targets were scaled back and the focus shifted to a set of ‘citizen entitlements’. Increasingly, changing behaviour rather than ameliorating symptoms was recognised as important, although these policies ­remained underdeveloped.

New Labour also seesawed in its view of local authorities, initially bypassing them by setting up new bodies and institutions outside their control, such as Sure Start and Connexions, and freeing up services from local authority control (notably schools).  But then it gave councils new powers in further education and in relation to Every Child Matters.

During a long period of increased investment in public services, such contradictions went untested. But, in tougher economic times it will not be easy to ­ignore them. Progressives now need public service reform that is not reliant on high growth in public spending.

Overall, New Labour’s legacy on public services amounted to an acceleration of the postwar trend of centralisation. The centre itself remained largely untouched. Despite the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, New ­Labour’s appetite for sharing power did not extend much further. It cannot claim to have fashioned a ‘new localism’ despite repeated talk of doing so.

Labour leaves office without a strong account of the future role of the state and rather embattled by increased hostility towards central government, expressed largely in terms of anxiety about the size of public spending.  Yet for progressives to revert to an overly simplistic view of the state would dismiss the lessons of the last 13 years. Rather than big, small or smart state we need it to protect, enable and empower citizens, balance national fairness with local flexibility and shape behaviour – but give citizens the freedom to determine their own future.

As a political project, New Labour was remarkably successful. It was committed to social justice within a market economy, but believed it could achieve that without unpicking the economic model it inherited. Its audacity was in rethinking Labour’s traditional positions, but this led it to be timid in addressing structural problems in our economy and setting out a more radical and ambitious view of how we might live as interdependent citizens.

Now, there needs to be a new settlement between democracy and markets. A much greater role for state intervention internationally in global markets should be set alongside greater dispersal of economic power and assets at the local level.

At the same time, we will need to weave sustainability into the economy and society through new forms of innovation and creativity, as well as confronting a profound political challenge to persuade people to live their lives differently.

Finally, we need to think afresh about how change occurs. We should turn our attention to power, voice, autonomy – and to establish what things that give individuals and groups the confidence and capacity to chart their own lives.

Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenheim are co-directors of the Institute for Public Policy Research

See the longer piece by Lisa and Carey on this subject: Will New Labour leave a lasting legacy?

Second Biennial Summit Focused on ‘Livable and Sustainable Cities for the Future,’ Draws More than 1,000 Delegates to Singapore from Over Countries.

A clean and adequate water supply and clean air rank as among the current top concerns for some cities around the world, with waste management, jobs, housing, and balancing development and the environment identified as the next most pressing issues today.

That is the response from a sampling of city leaders and urban planners who attended Singapore’s World Cities Summit 2010, held June 28-July 1.

The group surveyed represents cities on four continents and in both developed and developing nations, including Australia, France, India, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, the United States, and Vietnam.

Asked about issues of greatest concern over the next five years, respondents pointed to waste management, jobs, housing, and balancing development and environment as some of the key issues. In addition, they ranked urban greenery as most important for making a city livable, followed by urban planning, public housing, cultural vibrancy, and water management.

Those issues are representative of the many challenges participants addressed in Singapore at the World Cities Summit 2010. The Summit is a premier international event focusing on issues of leadership and governance, the building of sustainable and eco-friendly cities, and the fostering of harmonious and sustainable communities.

More than 1,000 government, industry, and business delegates from more than 60 countries gathered for the second biennial summit. They benefited from the opportunity to hear from leading urban planning experts, to share ideas, and to see firsthand how Singapore itself is successfully addressing its own challenges in planning and environmental sustainability.

The theme of the World Cities Summit 2010 – “Livable and Sustainable Cities for the Future” – is very apt in light of the fact that in 2008, the world crossed a significant threshold: For the first time in history, more people were living in towns and cities than in rural areas. That trend is expected to accelerate further, with predictions that by 2050, more than 70 percent of the world’s population will be living in urban areas, compared to just 13 percent in 1900. As a result, cities face enormous challenges, ranging from physical space to waste management to maintaining adequate water and other resources.

Those and other issues were in the spotlight throughout the four days of the summit. On the agenda were plenary sessions addressing the interaction of people, technology, and markets, with specific emphasis on leadership and governance, eco-friendly practices, and harmonious and sustainable communities.

The schedule also included expert panel sessions providing greater detail on specific challenges and solutions in areas of urban planning, infrastructure financing, public housing, built environment, waste management, climate change, and urban biodiversity.

In addition, model cities and innovative urban solutions that enhance economic value while addressing environmental challenges were showcased in the premiere World Cities Summit Expo.

Complementing the summit, participants had the opportunity to view and experience firsthand some of the creative solutions Singapore itself has devised to address universal urban issues, as well as its own unique challenges. As a dense and compact island city-state, Singapore’s small size and land scarcity calls for exceptionally careful land use planning; and its lack of natural resources has required highly innovative problem-solving – a Singapore national characteristic.

For example, environmental sustainability is a focal point at all levels. Through community partnerships, Singapore has set a target of increasing the national waste recycling rate from 40 percent in 2000 to 60 percent by 2012; and the Plant-A-Tree program, launched in 2007 by the National Parks Board, enlists the public to play a direct part in greening the island, both for public enjoyment and for environmental health. To date, more than 7,000 trees have been planted or pledged.

What’s more, sustainable development is viewed as critical both for a more dynamic economy and a better quality of living for Singaporeans. This led a high-level Inter-Ministerial Committee for Sustainable Development to unveil a blueprint in April 2009, detailing key environmental goals and initiatives for the next two decades, focusing on conservation, energy efficiency, and economic development.

The Singapore government has committed S$1 billion to implement the recommendations and adopted a four-pronged strategy: boosting resource efficiency, enhancing urban environments, building capabilities, and fostering community action.

Among the other urban initiatives Singapore has undertaken are the addition of 900 hectares of new parkland over the next decade; a second Green Building master plan, designed to reduce energy costs by S$1.6 billion annually; the construction of high-rise residential developments with double-volume living spaces and five floors of “sky gardens;” and an underground master plan to develop subterranean spaces the complement surface space.

“With major cities around the world facing the pressures of growing urbanization, it is vital that governments, business, and communities work together to address the issues of growth, liveability, and sustainability,” said Andrew Tan, Director of the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), and concurrently the CEO of Singapore’s National Environment Agency. “Currently, there is a lack of strategic platforms where leaders, policy makers, and solution providers can converge to discuss these challenges in an integrated manner. Through the biennial World Cities Summit, Singapore aims to provide such a dedicated platform for the exchange of best practices.”

The World Cities Summit is co-organised by the Centre for Liveable Cities and Singapore’s Civil Service College. For more information visit www.worldcities.com.sg

About the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC)

The Centre for Liveable Cities is a thought centre on urban governance and management jointly established by the Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources. The Centre seeks to bring together Singapore’s expertise on sustainable urban development in the areas of good governance, urban planning, effective resource management, quality living environment, affordable housing and sustainable transport solutions. The Centre facilitates the sharing of knowledge and best practices among cities in the region and globally. Visit us at www.clc.org.sg.

About the Civil Service College (CSC)

The Civil Service College (CSC) is a statutory board under the Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore. Its mission is to develop people for a first-class Public Service.

Through creating a service-wide environment for dialogue, knowledge-sharing and learning, CSC enables public officers from diverse backgrounds to share perspectives and build a common ethos. CSC offers practitioner-focused programmes and services to help the Singapore Public Service grow its policy-making, leadership and management, and public administration capacity.

On the global front, CSC’s engagements with a series of international partners make it a one-stop learning institution for overseas participants interested in the Singapore governance model, with customised training programmes and workshops conducted both in Singapore and abroad.

Visit us at www.cscollege.gov.sg.

Established in 1999, following the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the G-20 convened annual meetings of finance ministers and central bank governors from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

In 2008, G-20 leaders met for the first time in Washington to develop a coordinated response to the global economic crisis.

The Washington Summit was followed by summits in London (April 2009) and in Pittsburgh (September 2009), where leaders designated the G-20 as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.

Over the course of the three summits, leaders crafted a coordinated global response to the crisis. They implemented stimulus measures to restore confidence and agreed on actions to strengthen financial regulation. Leaders also committed to reform international financial institutions and agreed to promote trade and resist protectionism. These interventions have been effective in mitigating the impact of the crisis, while encouraging a quicker transition to recovery than could otherwise have been expected.

The G-20 Toronto Summit will provide leaders with an important opportunity to follow through on commitments made at previous summits and to continue the work of building a healthier, stronger and more sustainable global economy.

Summit Themes

The G-20 Toronto Summit will focus on recovery from the global economic and financial crisis and the implementation of commitments from previous G-20 summits, while laying the foundation for sustainable and balanced growth.

Official Events

Several preparatory events will be held leading up to the G-20 Toronto Summit.

Frequently Asked Questions

Find out the answers to your questions about the G-20 and the G-20 Toronto Summit.

Summit Greening

The Government of Canada intends to organize a sustainably managed G-20 summit consistent with the approach taken during previous high-level international events hosted by Canada.

President Obama at the G8 in Photos

The President spent Friday at the G8 Summit in Canada, which focused amongst other things on the Muskoka Initiative on maternal and child health (MCH).  See an array of photos from the day below.

Mr Teo Ser Luck, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and Ministry of Transport announced the launch today at the Singapore Youth & Media Conference 2010 held at Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

The WhyOhGee Community complements the WhyOhGee microsite (www.singapore2010.sg/whyohgee) that features multimedia content produced by young people for young people, and connects youths globally through the digital media.

The beta site was introduced eight months ago and currently has more than 10,000 registered users.

FEATURES

Integration with your other social media profiles: Hook up your Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and blog accounts with your WhyOhGee Community profile so your friends can see your latest updates aggregated on one single platform. Users can also tweet and update their Facebook status direct from their WhyOhGee Community homepage.

Multilingual Chat: If you do not speak the same language as the other users in your group, the chat function on WhyOhGee Community translates their messages for you. This application, brought to you by SingTel, allows you to indicate what language you would like to receive chat messages in, and the system does the rest. The translation feature is based on Google Translate, and we hope users will be able to make new friends from other cultures who speak different languages while having some fun.

Forums: Visitors on the WhyOhGee microsite (www.singapore2010.sg/whyohgee) can now discuss the content featured on the WhyOhGee Community forums, as well as start discussions on topics of their own.

Groups: Users who are interested in similar topics can form groups where you can share photos and post your thoughts on the group wall.

Upload your pictures: Upload pictures to your WhyOhGee Community profile (with the option of simultaneously uploading to your Flickr account) and decide which groups of users get to see these pictures (e.g. Friends, Family, Schoolmates, Colleagues).

Athlete profiles: There will be a section coming soon to feature athletes who have signed up for profiles on the WhyOhGee Community. This will allow users to follow what these YOG hopefuls are doing through their updates and allow them to send them personal messages of support.

HOW TO GET STARTED

1) Visit www.singapore2010.sg/community
2) Click on “Register”
3) Complete your personal profile and hit “Submit”
4) Log in to the email account that you registered with and click on the link to verify your account
5) Visit the Forums and Groups to make friends with other people who are just as excited about the Youth Olympic Games

SINGAPORE 2010 DIGITAL MEDIA INITIATIVES

WhyOhGee microsite (www.singapore2010.sg/whyohgee): A website that features stories, pictures and videos produced by youth, for youth.

Singapore 2010 Odyssey (www.singapore2010.sg/o): A 3D virtual world featuring the venues and sports of the inaugural Youth Olympic Games.

Million Deeds Challenge (www.singapore2010.sg/milliondeeds): Be part of the Olympic movement through sharing deeds of Excellence, Friendship and Respect, and join a virtual torch relay in the process.

Facebook (www.singapore2010.sg/facebook): Join the official fanpage for the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games.

Twitter (www.singapore2010.sg/twitter): Follow the official Twitter account for the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games.

YouTube (www.youtube.com/singapore2010): The place to go for videos produced for the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games.

Flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/singapore2010): The place to go for photos for the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games.

Singapore 2010 – Blazing the Trail

Singapore will be hosting the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG) from 14 to 26 August 2010.

The Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games will receive some 5,000 athletes and officials from the 205 National Olympic Committees (NOCs), along with an estimated 1,200 media representatives, 20,000 local and international volunteers, and more than 370,000 spectators.

Young athletes – aged between 14 and 18 years – will compete in 26 sports and take part in a Culture and Education Programme.

The Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games aims to inspire youth around the world to embrace, embody and express the Olympic values of Excellence, Friendship and Respect.

It will create a lasting sports, culture and education legacy for Singapore and youths from around the world, as well as enhance and elevate the sporting culture locally and regionally.

For more information, please visit www.singapore2010.sg

This year the LPC is also asked to pay particular attention to:

• the competitiveness of small firms; and

• the employment prospects of young people, including those in apprenticeships and internships.

The LPC will report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the end of February 2011, with their recommendations for October 2011.

The Government has also today announced its response to the recommendations in the LPC’s 2010 report and laid regulations to bring these into force.

The new rates, which will come into effect on 1 October 2010 will be:

• £5.93 per hour for low paid workers aged 21 and over, increased from  £5.80;

• £4.92 per hour for 18-20 year olds, increased from £4.83; and

• £3.64 per hour for 16-17 year olds, increased from £3.57.

For the first time there will also be an apprentice minimum wage of £2.50 per hour.  The new rate will apply to those apprentices who are under 19 or those that are aged 19 and over but in the first year of their apprenticeship.

Employment Relations Minister Edward Davey said:

“The increases to the National Minimum Wage this year are appropriate for the economic climate. They will strike a balance between helping the lowest paid whilst at the same time not jeopardising their employment.

“The Low Pay Commission estimates that around 970,000 people stand to benefit from these increases.

“Workers on the National Minimum Wage are disproportionately likely to be employed by small firms and so it is right the Low Pay Commission considers their competitiveness when they make their recommendations for next year. SMEs will be vital to our economic recovery”.

Low Pay Commission’s 2010 Report

The Low Pay Commission was pleased that the coalition Government today accepted the recommendations made in its 2010 report.  As well as increases to the three minimum wage rates from October 2010, a new apprentice rate will be introduced at £2.50 an hour.  This will be the first time apprentice pay will be covered by the minimum wage framework.

The Commission also welcomed its new remit from the Government, and confirmed it would report by the end of February 2011.

The Chair of the Low Pay Commission, David Norgrove said:

“Our recommendations this year were, as ever, based on sound economic evidence and took account of the prospects for the UK economy.  We are pleased that the new Government has accepted our recommendations, including on the introduction of an apprentice minimum wage.  We believe the apprentice arrangements will be simple, robust and straightforward to administer and enforce.

“We are also pleased that by giving us a new remit, the Government has shown support for an independent Low Pay Commission.  More than ten years on, the Commission’s work is still highly valued and respected.  Our commitment to an evidence-based approach aims to ensure this will continue”.

The sale will help raise funds for the public purse as well as creating better opportunities for new rail services to new destinations to run on the line.

From today, bidders interested in running the 68 mile line – which links London to the Channel Tunnel – as well as stations such as St Pancras International, Stratford, Ashford and Ebbsfleet are being invited to come forward. The successful bidder will become the owner of ‘HS1 Ltd’ which has a 30 year concession to run the line and stations.

Philip Hammond said:

“High Speed 1 is a national success story and a world class railway operating to international standards. The money generated by this sale will make an early significant contribution to the crucial task of reducing the public sector debt.

“That’s good news for the taxpayer. But the sale will also bring benefits to passengers as the successful private bidder will be incentivised to attract new operators serving new routes.

“This is part of the Government’s approach to making our national assets – and every taxpayer pound – work harder. The Government does not have to run everything directly – we need to take prompt action where private enterprise can provide both a better deal and a superior service to the public.”

High Speed 1 is currently used by international Eurostar services between London and European destinations as well as domestic high speed services between London and Kent. Following the sale, the performance of HS1 Ltd will be independently policed by the Office of Rail Regulation to ensure that rail passengers’ interests are effectively safeguarded.

HS1 Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary of London and Continental Railways Ltd., which is, in turn, directly owned by the Secretary of State for Transport. As part of the general financial restructuring undertaken last summer the Secretary of State entered into a long-term Concession with HS1 Ltd. to manage and operate the High Speed 1 railway between London and the Channel Tunnel. The Government now intends to sell HS1 Ltd. with that concession in place.

HS1 receives revenues from track access charges paid by train companies using the line including Eurostar, which operates services between London and European cities and Southeastern Trains, which operate domestic high speed services. A key objective for the future owner will be to try to attract onto the line new services, serving new destinations.

The sale process means that the Secretary of State for Transport will continue to own the infrastructure of the railway and the freehold to the associated land. HS1 Ltd will have the rights under the Concession to sell access to track and stations on a commercial basis. It will have to preserve the nature and capacity of High Speed 1 as a high-speed railway and to maintain and renew it to modern standards.

The performance of HS1 Ltd. under the Concession will be independently policed by the Office of Rail Regulation. After 30 years, the current Concession will cease and the Government will once again enjoy unencumbered ownership of the assets, with the potential to re-let a further Concession.

Bidders interested in purchasing HS1 Ltd must respond to the Pre-Qualification Questionnaire published today by 12 noon on 9 July 2010. The sale is being managed on behalf of the Government by London and Continental Railways Ltd, who are advised by UBS.

• NHS must accelerate cuts in management costs

• Targets removed as focus shifts to outcomes

A revision to the 2010/11 NHS Operating Framework, published today, sets out changes to key priorities for the NHS including plans to reverse the rise in management costs seen in the last year.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said:

“NHS spending will increase, but so too will the demand on NHS services.  In order to meet this demand, the NHS needs to make substantial savings and that is why I want to see immediate action this year to reduce management costs so that the savings made can be reinvested in NHS care for patients.

“Management costs in Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities have increased by over £1bn since 2002/03, with over £220m of the increase taking place during 2009/10.

“Management costs now stand at £1.85bn and it’s our intention that during 2010/11 we will remove all the management costs that have been additionally incurred during 2009/10, to get back to the level of 2008/09. Then in subsequent years, we will go beyond that, with a further £350m reduction in 2011/12. “

The overall reduction in management costs by 2013/14 will be £850m, which is a 46 per cent reduction on the 2009/10 management costs.

The revised Operating Framework also sets out for the first time changes to the use of targets in the NHS.  These include:

• removal of targets around access to primary care;

• removal of top-down performance management of the 18 weeks referral to treatment target; and

• reduction of the 4 hour A&E target threshold from 98 per cent to 95 per cent.

Andrew Lansley added:

“I want to free the NHS from bureaucracy and targets that have no clinical justification and move to an NHS which measures its performance on patient outcomes.   Doctors will be free to focus on the outcomes that matter – providing quality patient care.

“But I want to be clear – while the NHS will no longer be accountable to ministers or the Department for its performance in these areas, it will be very much accountable to the patients and public it serves. Patients will still be entitled to rights under the NHS Constitution and the quality of their experiences and outcomes are what will drive improvements in the future.

“We expect providers to continue to make improvements, for example on referral to treatment times, and to provide this information to patients themselves, driving choice and competition in the NHS.”

Today’s revisions also ask the NHS to give greater priority to two important areas, military veterans’ health and dementia.  The NHS must ensure that injured military personnel experience a smooth transition from military to NHS care as well as receiving priority treatment for conditions related to their service.

On dementia, the NHS must work closely with partners to implement the National Demential Strategy and publish information on how they are doing this so that people with dementia and their families have access to clear information to help them understand local services.

The changes set out today also reinforce recently announced plans to publish more transparent hospital infection data; new rules on reconfigurations that must have the support of local doctors and patients; and plans to withhold payment from hospitals where patients are readmitted within 30 days of discharge.

The Revision to the Operating Framework for the NHS in England for 2010/11 was published on Monday 21 June 2010 and can be found at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_110107

The revised Framework includes the requirement for Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts to reduce their management costs by £222m this year (2010/11) and a further £350m next year (2011/12) in order to bring costs down to less than £1006m – a third lower that the levels in 2008/09.  This money will be reinvested into NHS services.

The Coalition Government has a commitment to increase health spending in real terms each year of this Parliament.