Free nursery 'not lasting boost'

Free nursery places for pre-school children may not have a lasting impact on their education, the Government's spending watchdog has suggested.

A report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that it is not clear whether Government moves to fund nursery education for three and four-year-olds is leading to longer-term benefits.

Although it acknowledges there have been changes to free nursery education, and its link to children's results at age seven is not "straightforward", the NAO says the Department for Education "did intend that the entitlement would have lasting effects on child development throughout primary school and beyond".

The spending watchdog says free
nursery places for pre-school children
 may not create long-term benefits

While children's development at age five has improved, results at age seven remain unchanged, the report says.

Nationally, 59% of five-year-olds achieved a good level of development in 2010/11 compared to 45% in 2005/06, it says. But it adds: "National Key Stage One results, however, have shown almost no improvement since 2007, so it is not yet clear that the entitlement is leading to longer-term educational benefits."

Children's Minister Sarah Teather said: "We are pleased that the NAO has recognised the progress made since we introduced free early education for three and four-year-olds. There is lots more to do - and the report also sets out important national and local challenges to be addressed.

"We are determined to improve the availability of quality places in disadvantaged areas, and offering free early education to around 40% of two-year-olds will help by bringing even more money into the system.

"We also want to examine in more detail how to make sure the significant improvements we are seeing at five feed through into better results at seven."

However Daniela Wachsening, education policy adviser at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "There is absolutely no doubt that high-quality early years education makes a massive difference to children's development, and is particularly important for children from disadvantaged families.

"But the Government is jeopardising the chances of disadvantaged children by cutting the grants to local authorities, which has led to the loss of high-quality early years places and drastic reductions in children's and family services to the detriment of the most vulnerable children."

Clegg: Lords irrelevant to public

Moves by peers to vote down aspects of the
Government's welfare reform show they
 are out of touch with voters, Nick Clegg said

The House of Lords showed it was out of touch with voters' concerns by trying to water down Government efforts to slash billions from welfare payments, Nick Clegg said.

A series of defeats inflicted on benefit reforms by peers, including leading bishops, were reversed by MPs on Wednesday despite protests from disability and poverty campaigners.

The upper chamber had sought to exclude child benefit from a £26,000-a-year household cap, exempt cancer patients from means testing and stop parents being charged to use the Child Support Agency.

Senior Tories have accused ministers of treating the Lords with "contempt" by using parliamentary convention to prevent the upper chamber proposing further changes in key areas.

Interviewed by parliament's The House magazine in the wake of the defeats, Mr Clegg, who is leading efforts to reform the Lords, suggested it was irrelevant to the public.

"When people are trying to pay the bills, and are worried about their jobs, and are worried their kids going to college and all the rest of it, I don't think the vast majority of people think about the House of Lords at all," he said.

"I don't think it impinges on their daily life at all. When it does, like it did this week, how can I put this politely? I suspect many people will think: 'I am not sure this is a chamber in real touch with my everyday concerns'."

He defended the opposition of some of his own party's peers to aspects of the Welfare Reform Billhowever, saying they had "totally legitimate concerns" over some issues.

They were often being asked to vote in some cases on things they "wouldn't do in a month of Sundays if it was a Liberal Democrat government", he pointed out.

Mr Clegg also expressed his fears that the international stand-off with Iran over its nuclear ambitions could end in conflict or provoke countries such as Israel to launch a military strike. "Of course I worry that there will be a military conflict and that certain countries might seek to take matters into their own hands," he said.

Deal with the past, urges McGrory

The head of Northern Ireland's prosecution service has questioned if politicians have the will to tackle the fallout from the decades of violence in the region.

There is a long-running debate on how to deal with the legacy of the Troubles, with some victims calling for prosecutions in unsolved murders, and others demanding information on how and why their loved ones were killed.

Barra McGrory, director of the Public
Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland,
addresses the Committee on the Administration of Justice

Barra McGrory was a high profile defence lawyer before recently being appointed director of public prosecutions.

In a speech to leading human rights watchdog the Belfast-basedCommittee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), he said the question of dealing with Northern Ireland's past should be a priority.

"I think there is an imperative in the public interest that society finds a mechanism to deal with the past," he said.

"Whether that be simply giving more resources to the investigators to get on with the investigating, and then consequentially the prosecution service to prosecute cases if the evidence emerges, or whether or not society is ready for a solution to the past outside of the prosecutorial system, is a matter that I think this society needs to confront.

"In my view, the sooner it confronts it the better, but confront it it needs to."

Mr McGrory has said his decision to become a lawyer was heavily influenced by his late father Paddy McGrory, who acted in a series of high profile cases across the political divide but who rose to international prominence as legal representative for the families of three unarmed IRA members shot dead by security forces in Gibraltar in 1988.

He said that during his time as a defence lawyer, he rarely had reason to consider how the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decided whether or not to proceed with prosecutions.

But Mr McGrory said his role in public inquiries had stirred a greater interest in the issue. He added: "I think, perhaps even it would be safe to say that my representation of the (sectarian murder victim Robert) Hamill family was one of the reasons why I perhaps took an interest in this job, in that, for the first time as a lawyer I had to confront the difficulties faced by victims of a crime and how they related to the prosecution and how the prosecution related to them. And that brought home to me the importance of the role."

©Press Association

Thousands may lose criminal record

Thousands of offenders could have their past convictions cleared from their record under Government plans.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke plans to reduce the length of time during which job applicants are legally required to disclose past criminal convictions.

Prison terms of up to six months would be spent two years after the end of the sentence, compared with seven years after conviction now, and only jail terms of four years or longer would never be considered spent, compared with all those of 30 months or longer now.

Justice Minister Lord McNally said: "First and foremost, criminals must be suitably punished for their crimes. But it is no good for anyone if they go to jail and come out and then can't get an honest job and so turn back to crime again.

Ken Clarke plans to reduce the time
it takes for a conviction to become spent

"That is why we are bringing forward reforms which will give offenders who have served their sentence a fair chance of getting back on the straight and narrow, while ensuring safeguards are in place to protect the public."

But Paul McDowell, chief executive of the crime reduction charity Nacro, called for the Government to go further. He said: "These long overdue reforms will significantly help those people who have offended in the past and are now living law-abiding lives.

"Reformed offenders face barriers to employment because of old criminal records hanging around their necks. Today's proposed amendments will mean that more people will be able to secure work, give something back to society and lead productive lives."

The reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 were proposed in an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Ministers have previously said they are keen to ensure that minor convictions as a juvenile do not blight young people's future prospects.

The previous Labour government had proposed a one-year disclosure period for non-custodial sentences, two years for jail sentences of up to four years, and four years for sentences of more than four years.


©Press Association 2012

Flood Defense Mechanisms are not a Priority to the Government, says PAC

Flood Defense Mechanisms are not a Priority to the Government, says PAC

The U.K. government is not prepared to maintain an efficient flood defence. The government has recently decided to cut funds related to flood defence, highlighting their lack of commitment on this issue.

Though flood defence and protection is a national priority, the government has shown lack of interest and preparedness in maintaining an effective flood resistance system. Climate Change Risk Assessment has maintained that flooding heads the list of the 100 most acute national risks in the country amid climate change.

There is a wide gap between the funds allocated for flood defences and funds actually needed for the protection of 5 million homes. The cost of flood damage is estimated at £1.1 billion per annum, and is expected to rise due to ageing defences and climate change.


Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge has said that protection from floods is a national priority and “the Department of Environment sees more funding coming from local sources”. However, in the current climate this may not continue as both local authorities and businesses are under mounting financial pressure.

Charles Tucker, chair of the National Flood Forum, agrees with PAC and expressed that the government is doing very little to address this cause. He believes this is exposing citizens to greater risk, highlighting that floods will not wait until the country is financially secure before striking.

Margaret Hodge 

In its report, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has observed that an increase in floods is likely, and damages are expected to amplify by almost 10 times.

Prime Minister David Cameron and environment secretary Caroline Spelman are aware of the risks, but the coalition government has slashed the budget by 27% during its first year in office. About 1,000 schemes have not been implemented due to lack of funds. The government has failed to provide a solution that guarantees access to flood prevention measures. This has left people vulnerable as the existing arrangements are due to expire in mid-2013 and the insurance industry has declared that households may not be able to insure themselves thereafter.

The government’s lukewarm approach has prompted The Association of British Insurers to publish the location of houses that are at extreme risk from floods, which may not receive assistance unless the government reacts proactively and comes up with an affordable financial scheme.

Source: eGov Monitor
Published Thursday, 2 February 2012 - 10:44

Prostate Cancer Drug 'Too Pricey' For NHS

A drug which can extend the lives of men with late-stage prostate cancer has been ruled too expensive for use on the NHS.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) says abiraterone (also called Zytiga) doesn't provide enough benefit to justify the price the NHS is being asked to pay.

Leading cancer experts said the decision was "disappointing" and a "huge blow" to patients who have very few treatment options left.

Cancer Research UK said the draft decision by Nice, which is still open to consultation, made "no sense" and Nice had used the wrong criteria to judge the drug.

Abiraterone was developed by scientists at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) and the Royal Marsden in London after the discovery that some prostate cancers can produce their own testosterone.

It works in a new way, by blocking the production of male hormones in all tissues, not just the testes, including both the adrenal glands and the tumours themselves.

A phase III trial, reported last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 1,195 patients from 13 countries.

Prostate Cancer Drug 'Too Pricey' For NHS

All had stopped responding to standard hormone therapies as well as second-line treatments such as chemotherapy drug docetaxil.

It showed that men survived an average of four months longer and suffered far less pain with abiraterone compared to those taking a placebo.

Although the average extended survival time was four months, some men did much better, including two who were still alive after starting the treatment in 2007.

Abiraterone has been regarded as a "success story" for the ICR following more than two decades of work to develop the drug.

Experts said it has not only improved survival for men with prostate cancer but has also changed the way scientists think about the disease.

Nice has ruled that although abiraterone is clinically effective, it is not good value for money for the NHS at the price set by the manufacturer, Janssen.

©

Concessions offered on benefits cap

The Government has offered concessions over its £26,000 cap on benefits as MPs threw out changes to the controversial welfare reforms made in the House of Lords.

Once the changes come into force in April 2013, people who lose their job will be given a nine-month grace period to find work before the cap is imposed, employment minister Chris Grayling said.

Workless families currently receiving payments at a level above the cap will be given support to make them understand the need to find jobs before the April 2013 deadline.

At Prime Minister's Question Time, David Cameron challenged Labour to support the threshold, saying: "The cap is right and the cap is fair."

A Lords amendment, which was led by Church of England bishops and removed child benefit from the cap, was overturned by 334 votes to 251, majority 83.

Mr Grayling said the public "overwhelmingly" supported the Government's stance to introduce a benefits cap at £26,000 a year, equivalent to a gross salary of £35,000.

People who lose their job will be given a nine-month
grace period, employment minister Chris Grayling said

He said Labour had been guilty of "flip-flopping" on the issue, initially supporting a benefits ceiling before the party's peers supported an amendment in the Lords to exclude child benefit from any cap.

But in the face of concerns from Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes, and Mark Field, Tory MP for Cities of London and Westminster - who said they were worried families in the capital might have to move out because of the changes - Mr Grayling announced a number of concessions.

He said families would receive a 12-month grace period to find work, while those who lose their job through no fault of their own after being employed for a year would be given nine months in which to find new employment.

Meanwhile, households entitled to working tax credit would be exempted from the cap along with working households on universal credit after 2013.