This made me smile:

Letter sent to the Daily Express, 10 November 2010

re your article "Cameron must say no to votes for prisoners"

Dear Sir

The EU is always interested in what one of its leading members has to say, but if David Cameron takes Ann Widdecombe's advice, it won't get him very far. It is the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation, that is responsible for the ruling on prisoners' votes.

Yours faithfully

Antonia Mochan
Head of Media
European Commission Representation, London

Now this is a headline Lord Bonkers would be proud of:

Porpoises rescue Dick Van Dyke

Disappointingly, the report says "The porpoises were unavailable for comment."

For those of us who like looking at numbers, the full data for the S4C poll that featured on Y Byd ar Bedwar on Monday have just been published, here.

contribution by Arthur Baker

Marching along Milbank the word went round: "that's Tory HQ!" soon, hundereds of protesters rushed towards the building.

It was completely undefended, and it took the protesters all of about 15 seconds to break through into the lobby. A minute later, a few police tried to block the doors to stop anyone getting in or out but to little avail. They were hugely outnumbered, and their raised batons did little to stop protesters.

Some once inside simply walked upstairs, went through a fire exit and onto the roof, others entered offices and smashed windows from inside, whilst others sprayed graffiti, smashed up the lobby, and generally caused trouble.

Soon the courtyard in front of Milbank had turned into a kind of festival, with students singing anti-Tory chants around crackling bonfires made up of burning placards and hundereds of people dancing to Dub being boomed out of a bike-mounted speaker.

It reminded me more than anything of Woodcraft Folk camps I'd attended as a child. Later a Samba band arrived, conducted by a grinning pony tailed young man, who led thousands of people in a chant of "Fuck Fees" in perfect time to the music.

Particularly touching was the moment when a girl who was taking advantage of the large clearing around one of the bonfires by spraying the words "Tory scum" on the floor was approached by a man with an air of urgency who said "Careful there, you're spraying quite near the fire".

As much as the Tory press (and for that matter Aaron Porter, the BBC, and The Guardian) are keen to give the impression that a tiny minority of nutters who "probably weren't even students" were ruining the march for everyone else, this is simply not true. There were thousands of students in front of the Milbank Building, cheering as windows were smashed, adding their placards to the bonfire.

Perhaps the press simply do not want to believe that any significant proportion of students are angry enough to engage in more than a bit of banner-waving, but unfortunately this is no longer the case. The only moment when the crowd in the square was unhappy with the actions of protesters was when they loudly booed and jeered as a fire extinguisher was dropped (quite possibly accidentally) from the roof, and the crowd chanted "stop throwing shit" (see video below).

I made a point to talk to as many people as possible, and whilst nobody wanted to see people hurt, they were perfectly happy to cheer as Tory HQ was vandalised; I didn't find a single person objected to the vandalism, not even a police officer and a BBC journalist who both told me (off the record of course) that if they had been students, they would be doing the same – and who can blame them, when they face cuts and job losses too.

A much as the press go on about 'violence', the violence was very minimal. Like every protest I've ever been to, thousands of people pushing one way, police trying to stop them and inevitably a few people in the middle getting hurt. I saw people lobbing bits of placards and one or two throwing punches at police, and I saw police clobbering innocent teenagers with batons.

I talked to some students who told me that after smashing into another building they were trapped in by police and – despite not fighting back – battered with battons.

All of them should face justice, but for the record, putting a placard or an effigy of David Cameron on a bonfire is not violence, writing on walls is not violence, smashing windows is not violence and dancing on roves is not violence. Even throwing bits of cardboard placard at police clad in bullet proof jackets and helmets, armed with sheilds and battons hardly seems "thugish".

The 'occupation' may not be justifiable, that's a matter of opinion, but it should have been expected, and circumvented: 20 police lining that part of the road would have been enough to dissuade protesters.

Finally the question of whether the incident at Milbank furthered our cause or damaged it. One thing missing from the news coverage was footage of the building being stormed by protesters in the first place, why? Surely protesters forcing the doors and surging in would make incredible footage? The answer is that the press simply weren't there. In fact, the cameras only arrived half an hour after the protesters. On a march of 50,000, until the vandalism started, the only cameras I saw were from LSTV (Leeds student television).

In October thousands of students and trade unionists marched peacefully on downing street, and they did not make the news. Peaceful protests make boring news, without causing a bit of trouble we wouldn't have been as big news, never mind having almost uninterrupted coverage on every TV news channel and dominating every front page.

What's more, what cause did protesters 'damage?' protesters don't want public sympathy, they want to create a feeling of unrest, and show that the Coalition are unpopular with the eventual aim of taking their votes, and this protest can only have furthered this aim.

Of course Aaron Porter and any elected representative has to denounce any vandalism, but yesterday students sent a clear message that they are furious with the government, that you can't deprive people of an education or saddle them with life-long debts without some reprocussions, and people are listening. Who cares if it made them unpopular?

It's very red - and has much going for it - but there is just too much going on compared with previous Routemasters

"Too many notes, Mozart." This is what Joseph II, Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor, is supposed to have said on first hearing The Marriage of Figaro. I thought of this funny, if apposite, quote when I looked, from all angles inside and out, at the mock-up of the new London bus designed by Thomas Heatherwick and Wrightbus of Ballymena for Boris Johnson and Transport for London.

Although this is a bus with no name, it's already known as the new Routemaster after the much-loved double-decker that served the capital's streets for the best part of half a century until axed, save for two "heritage" routes, by Ken Livingstone. Like its distinguished predecessor, the bus boasts an open platform. So conductors will return, as will the age-old London habit of jumping on and off buses in traffic, although the platform can be closed off when required. The new bus boasts two further sets of doors, and two staircases instead of one.

Well planned, and with a small and efficient 4.5-litre hybrid engine tucked under the rear stairs, the Mk2 Routemaster has much going for it. The static mock-up, however, can only be judged on its appearance. And, here, there is something not quite right about it. Yes, the form is gently rounded to reduce its bulk, as Routemasters and previous generations of London buses were. True, it's as red as red could be, and it even boasts a London Transport, or TfL, roundel motif up front as if to make sure we recognise this as a bespoke London bus and not a cheaper model brought off the shelf from a general supplier.

But, the way the body appears to have two skins, with the second looking like a skirt cut on an exaggerated bias, is fussy; from the front, the new Routemaster looks as if it's wearing an eyepatch, a knowing reference perhaps to the days, a century ago, when fiercely deregulated London buses raced one other dangerously to pick up passengers, and were known as "pirates".

The zig-zag effect of the glass lighting the forward stair is also fussy; as this is on one side only, the new bus is as wilfully asymmetrical as a deconstructivist building by Daniel Libeskind. The prominent and shiny hubcaps are a bit bling - as if from a pantomime pirate's costume - while, inside, the seat coverings look as if they have been designed with Bridget Riley in one of the artist's more challenging moments. Too many swirls.

At its best - from 1910 to 1970 - a true London bus was a fine balance between a workaday functional tool, designed for a long and hard life, and a machine of quietly resolved and understated elegance. Distinctive, it was never showy. There is still time for Heatherwick, TfL and Wrightbus to cut down on the number of notes played on this mock-up and to shape a fashion-free bus that might yet serve London for several post-Olympic generations.

This made me smile:

Letter sent to the Daily Express, 10 November 2010

re your article "Cameron must say no to votes for prisoners"

Dear Sir

The EU is always interested in what one of its leading members has to say, but if David Cameron takes Ann Widdecombe's advice, it won't get him very far. It is the Council of Europe, a completely separate organisation, that is responsible for the ruling on prisoners' votes.

Yours faithfully

Antonia Mochan
Head of Media
European Commission Representation, London

Why the housing benefit changes are not about social cleansing, but instead about getting rents reduced for all tenants.

In New York there is a political party named "The Rent's too damn high", founded by Jimmy McMillan. What he argues is that life is difficult in New York because rents are too high. It is important to recognise that private sector rents are also an issue in the UK as well as those funded by the state.

Since November 2008 private rents have gone down by 5% and private rents funded by Local Housing Allowance (LHA) have gone up by 3%. The government changed the housing benefit system for private landlords a few years ago replacing Housing Benefit with a Local Housing Allowance. As LHA will be paid regardless of how high the rent actually is, this has driven up the rents paid in this sector. In comparison to the rents on the old Housing Benefit an additional 10% is being paid through LHA.

It is worth noting that the upward pressure on rents from LHA has also driven up rents paid by people who don't get Housing Benefit. This is neither helpful to the country, where money is being borrowed to overpay landlords nor is it helpful to the lower paid who are renting privately.

The government, therefore, has a number of objectives in controlling housing benefit: The first one is to reduce the poverty trap. The higher that rents are the harder it is to benefit from working: if your LHA-paid rent is above what the average working family could afford, there is a disincentive to find a job and get off benefits. The second one is to reduce the benefit. There is no sense in the government borrowing money to landlords artificially inflated rents. The third one is to keep rents down generally as this is important to private tenants.

The debate about Housing Benefit reform has been muddied with confusion. Most of the fuss has been about the cap of around �20,000 per year on housing benefit. This was in fact a policy supported in principle by the Labour manifesto.

The more complex issue is the one of taking the maximum rent payable under LHA from the median in an area to the lower third of rentals. This is the area where people have talked about social cleansing.

There are quite a few tenants across the country that would be affected by this. It will not, however, affect any tenants who are in Council Housing or Housing Association properties. In London, for example, there are 790,000 such properties where nothing will change.

The question, then is what happens where the LHA is perhaps �10 less than the rent that is currently being paid. What I would suggest is that the government offers to pay landlords directly if the landlords agree to charge a lower rent without a top-up from the tenant. This, as a proposal, is attractive to the landlords as they would find a value in the certainty of being paid. Many landlords today won't accept tenants on Housing Benefit because they are worried about not being paid. Hence this would open up more properties to tenants.

In essence this is a reversal of the system to that which existed before. The evidence currently is that this would see a reduction in rents of around 10% – because that is the difference between rents paid today on Housing Benefit and those on LHA.

It is true that some flexibility will be needed and there may be some landlords who will not accept a rent cut and tenants will need to move. There has also been an increase proposed in Discretionary Housing Payments, which allow councils to top up housing benefit. However, if landlords can keep higher rents merely by being intransigent then no progress will be made in getting rents reduced.

There are other changes also being proposed. They are all based around the concept of ensuring that the deal offered to people on benefit is not one that traps them in poverty. Those NGOs that continually argue for higher benefit payments for the unemployed are also arguing a case that traps people in poverty, whereas the opposite appears to be true. The Universal Credit will be able to deal with much of this but we should not make things worse before that gets introduced.

Hence it is nonsense to talk about Social Cleansing. Jimmy McMillan is right "The rent's too damn high".

What has been on trial is the possibility of humour itself, the right of a freeborn Englishman to be facetious as and when he feels like it, about any subject whatsoever.

Against that age-old national instinct to make light of adverse circumstances - the spirit that got us through the Blitz - we now find a new and alien notion that there are some things that are beyond joking, that even an obvious joke must be treated seriously. Because it's no laughing matter. Because you can't be too careful. Because any imagined threat, however patently absurd, must be ritually investigated.

And the person making the joke must bear the responsibility for the time-consuming and costly process of investigation, even though the possibility of such an investigation never crossed his mind, just to drive the message home that You Cannot Make Jokes About Terrorism.

A few of my images are going to be used to decorate the website of Equality, a new but admirable charity which aims to uphold the rights of new Roma migrants to the UK. Equality does lots of consultation and produces briefings on various issues facing these new central and eastern European communities, with the aim of educating those who work in statutory agencies, local authorities and other support groups. I'm very happy to share my work with them in this way.

European stakeholders are divided over "net neutrality" based on responses to the recently concluded three month consultation by the European Commission. Currently, no information is given special privileges on the web and most stakeholders responding to the consultation believe that should remain. EU Commissioner Kroes is not convinced that the status quo is the best way to move forward.

The European Energy Commissioner G�nther Oettinger, unveiled the Commission's decade long energy strategy yesterday with an aim to create a single EU energy market - that would ensure EU's energy supplies are secure and efficient.

Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers loses appeal against conviction...

Paul Chambers, a 27-year-old accountant whose online courtship with another tweeter led to the "foolish prank", had hoped that a crown court would dismiss his conviction and �1,000 fine without a full hearing.

But Judge Jacqueline Davies instead handed down a devastating finding at Doncaster which dismissed Chambers's appeal on every count. After reading out his tweet - "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" - she found that it contained menace and Chambers must have known that it might be taken seriously.

This country is out of its fucking mind.

Update: This stupid, unpleasant prick is now presumably bricking it.

Update: Paul Chambers' support fund is here.

Related posts:

1. Guardian: Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters
2. Passport to terror
3. Tim Ireland: I refuse to surrender

The following article was written by Baroness Liz Barker and was published today on the Liberal Democrat Voice Website

As the nights draw one can become a bit miserable. So here is my list of reasons to be cheerful (Part V):

ؠ����� Tax: people earning less than �10,000 pay no income tax
ؠ����� Banking levy: the people responsible for the financial mess being made to help with the clear up
ؠ����� Social Care: �2 billion to fund long term care
ؠ����� Green Investment Bank: �1 billion in cash plus the proceeds of future asset sales to fund investment in offshore wind farms and other projects
ؠ����� Carbon Capture Storage: A �1 billion investment in a 'carbon capture' scheme, to take the carbon emissions from a power station and store them deep underground
ؠ����� Child Tax Credits: Available to families earning under �41,329 from April and under �23,275 from 2012, will go up by �30 in 2011 and �50 in 2012, at a cost of �560million a year by 2014
ؠ����� Sure Start: Budget protected� in cash terms
ؠ����� Childcare for two-year-olds: From 2013, disadvantaged two-year-olds will be entitled to 15 hours or more of childcare paid for by the taxpayer a week
ؠ����� National Scholarship Fund: �150million a year by 2014, to help pay for higher education for poorer children
ؠ����� Museum Charges: Entry to museums in Britain still free
ؠ����� Regional Growth Fund: �1.4 billion over three years, with the aim of pumping money into areas of the country especially hard-hit by cutbacks in the size of the state
ؠ����� BBC: A realistic deal in exceptional circumstances securing a strong independent BBC for the next six years

All these are commitments in the Comprehensive Spending Review which would not have happened if Liberal Democrats had not been in government making them happen. Sure, there are elements of the CSR which we don't like and will have to put up with. Some we will contest, as members of a true coalition should. �However the next time someone on the doorstep gives you a load of nonsense about Focus leaflets being unnecessary because there is a coalition, or when Guardian columnists, desperate to camouflage Labour's past and current deficiencies, resort to disgusting insults, throw this back at them:

ؠ����� Restoring the link between pensions and earnings
ؠ����� �140 flat rate per week pension which will benefit women in particular
ؠ����� 100,000 Green Deal workers employed to upgrade and insulate Britain's homes.

All achieved because of Liberal Democrats in government and all strong reasons to elect Liberal Democrats, not Tories, in Oldham East and Saddleworth and in the Scottish, Welsh and local elections in 2011.

We are not, never have been and never will be, a sub-set of the Tories. We are Liberal Democrats doing what we can, given the mess which Labour left, to make life better for everyone, particularly the less well off, and it is time to start telling people.

Baroness Liz Barker is a Liberal Democrat member of the House of Lords

Carers are being reminded to look after their own health and wellbeing with the launch of a new project taking advice and information out into the community.��

A number of events are taking place across North East Lincolnshire using either community locations or a mobile bus situated in prominent locations where professionals from a number of local organisations will be on hand to offer advice on things ranging from support to making lifestyle changes, keeping healthy, heating your home and benefits.

Carers are invited to come along to one of the drop-in events to find out about what help they could be entitled to. Eligible carers will also have the opportunity to have their own health checked with simple blood pressure, height, weight, BMI, waist circumference and diabetes testing.��������

Martin Leach, carers project coordinator at North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus said: "There are a large number of people across North East Lincolnshire who are carers, but many do not realise they are carers as they just see it as looking after a loved one or neighbour.���

"If you look after someone who has a disability, illness or additional need then you are a carer and we would urge you to come along to one of our events for specialist advice on your own health and wellbeing, information on benefits, carers support services and keeping warm this winter. Often carers spend so much time caring for another person, their own health can be neglected and these events are about finding these hidden carers and offering them the advice and information they need.�

"Come along to one of our drop-in sessions for specialist advice. There will be representatives from the Care Trust Plus, North East Lincolnshire Council, the North East Lincolnshire Carers Centre, Citizens Advice Bureau and many others."��

The events are taking place at:��
Grimsby Neighbourhood Centre, 289a Weelsby Street, Grimsby
Friday November 19, 12pm to 3pm�

New Waltham Village Hall, New Waltham, Grimsby
Thursday November 25, 12pm to 3pm�

Morrison's Car Park, Laceby Acres, Grimsby
Monday November 29, 10am to 3pm��

Civic Hall, Pelham Road, Immingham
Wednesday December 8, 12pm to 3pm�

More events supporting the campaign will be running between January and February 2011.�

GP practices in North East Lincolnshire have shown their support for breastfeeding by becoming part of the Breastfeeding Welcome Scheme.�

Four local GP practices have joined the scheme - Fieldhouse and Woodford Medical Centres based at the Freshney Green Primary care centre and Dr Biswas' surgery and Dr Zaro's surgery in Cleethorpes.�

The Breastfeeding Welcome scheme is an initiative which aims to help mothers recognise places where they are welcome to breastfeed their babies when they are out and about in North East Lincolnshire.�

Isobel Duckworth, locum consultant in public health, said: "I am delighted to be able to present the certificates to the practices as part of the Breastfeeding Welcome scheme.� It is great that the practices have committed themselves to support women and their families when they are attending or visiting the GP practices."��

Kathy Holmes, infant feeding coordinator at North East Lincolnshire Council, said: "There is evidence to show that a lot of mothers would like to breastfeed for longer and often give up before they really want to so it is important that they know they are fully supported.�

"We are very pleased that these practices have agreed to join the Breastfeeding Welcome scheme and we hope that other practices will also consider becoming a part of it.��

"We have been delighted by the positive response of a wide range of businesses and organisations and the support they have shown for the scheme.�By being a part of the scheme they will be contributing towards ensuring a healthy start in life for the children living in and visiting North East Lincolnshire."�

The scheme was developed in partnership with local Breastfeeding Peer supporters, North East Lincolnshire Council, the CTP and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.��

Establishments are invited to complete a checklist, agree to certain criteria supporting mothers to breastfeed should they want to while visiting their premises. Establishments are then awarded a sticker and certificate to display showing that they are "Breastfeeding Welcome" and will provide a welcoming and supportive environment to mothers and their families.��

The health benefits of breastfeeding have been proven to have long lasting effects on a child's development and growth. The milk that a baby receives from breastfeeding is more than just a food. It contains antibodies and all the nutrients needed to help protect a baby against the risk of infection and disease. It is easily absorbed and adapts to promote babies growth and development. That is why the Department of Health recommends breast milk (exclusively) as the best source of nutrition for at least the first six months.�

The directories are available from local children's centres or on discharge from the maternity unit or from health visitors. To find out about where children's centres are located, ring the Family Information Service on Freephone number 0800 18 303 17.

"Residents in Oldham East and Saddleworth and across the country will not understand why the Labour Party won't say clearly, with one voice, that there is no place in British politics for this kind of behaviour."

Following the public and private support being given to Phil Woolas by Labour MPs despite the party's leadership withdrawing support for him, Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader Simon Hughes said: "Labour's leaders had spoken but since then many Labour MPs have come out in support of Phil Woolas both on and off the record.

"The judgement of the court was clear: Phil Woolas made statements which were not about Liberal Democrat politics but personal attacks on our candidate's character and conduct which he had no reasonable grounds for believing were true and did not believe were true.

"Residents in Oldham East and Saddleworth and across the country will not understand why the Labour Party won't say clearly, with one voice, that there is no place in British politics for this kind of behaviour."

David Allen Green has already posted this on Twitter, but here's the Guardian story:

The man convicted of ‘menace' for threatening to blow up an airport in a Twitter joke has lost his appeal.

Paul Chambers, a 27-year-old accountant whose online courtship with another tweeter led to the "foolish prank", had hoped that a crown court would dismiss his conviction and �1,000 fine without a full hearing.

But Judge Jacqueline Davies instead handed down a devastating finding at Doncaster which dismissed Chambers' appeal on every count. After reading out his Tweet - "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" - she found it contained menace and that Chambers must have known that it might be taken seriously.

Chambers, who lost his financial manager's job after his arrest in January, sent the message to a contact called Crazycolours, a young woman from Northern Ireland who was among 650 people who regularly followed his 140-character tweets.

Completely absurd.

If you want to help fund their appeal, here is the link.

Reactions on Twitter:

@crazycolours

My battery is dying. We are gutted. It's not the fine, this is stopping Paul getting a job and has ruined his life. #twitterjoketrial

@StephenFry

@pauljchambers My offer still stands. Whatever they fine you, I'll pay x #twitterjoketrial

@earwicga

Perhaps all the people angry at the #twitterjoketrial can take an interest in rape victim sent to jail? http://bit.ly/cr3pJP

@TeeSpirit

Struggling to understand how the CPS found a case about a joke and airport, but didn't regarding Ian Tomlinson? #TwitterJokeTrial

@mitchellrob

Were he alive, assume JGBallard would be due in dock for his menacing 1968 shortstory ‘Why I Want To Fuck Ronald Reagan' #twitterjoketrial

DrBillyo

No offence everyone, but I think this is all preaching to the converted. We need to take our anger tonight's outlets. #twitterjoketrial

Charities say Iain Duncan Smith's proposals, which include forcing some jobless people to do unpaid community work, will expose families and children to the 'risk of destitution'

Ian Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, faced a backlash from poverty campaigners today over plans to impose severe welfare penalties on people who are out of work and refuse to take up jobs.

Leading anti-poverty charities accused the coalition government of creating a "climate of fear" and exposing families and children to the "risk of destitution" as Duncan Smith outlined tough sanctions as part of a radical shake-up of out-of-work benefits which he said represented a "fair deal" for both the jobless and the taxpayer.

Under the changes outlined in a white paper, published today, a work programme will be introduced to help people return to the workforce - with some long-term jobless required to do unpaid community work.

But unemployed people who persistently fail to turn up or turned down and refused to apply for jobs will lose their �65-a-week jobseekers' allowance for up to three years.

Those without jobs will lose benefits for three months if they fail to take up one of the options for the first time, six months if they refuse an offer twice, and three years if they refuse an offer three times.

Duncan Smith, who said earlier today that it was a "sin" that people fail to take up work, said his welfare reforms would create a system "fit for the 21st century, where work always pays".

Out-of-work parents of young children will be penalised if they fail to keep in touch with their local jobcentre.

Duncan Smith told MPs in a brief statement to the Commons this afternoon that the contract was a "fair deal for taxpayers and a fair deal for those who need our help".

He promised a "comprehensive system of support" to help people back into employment, and a regime of sanctions for those who refuse to "play by the rules".

He said that his welfare reforms could lift up to 850,000 people - including 350,000 children - out of poverty under a scheme that ensured that people would be "consistently and transparently better off" for each hour they worked and every pound they earned.

"Essentially this is our contract," the former Tory leader told MPs. "We will make work pay and support you through the work programme to find a job, but in return if we do that we expect co-operation from those who are seeking work. That is why we are developing a regime of sanctions for those who refuse to play by the rules, as well as targeting work activity for those who need to get used to the habits of work. That will be a selective process very much targeted at those who need to do it. Not everybody."

The work and pensions secretary laid out the benefits of replacing the present complex system of at least 30 work-related benefits into a single universal credit, as a central part of his reform package.

He told MPs that some 2.5 million households should get higher entitlements as a result of the move to the universal credit and also claimed that a new transparency in the system should also lead to a "substantial increase" in the take-up of benefits and tax breaks.

He also promised to protect financially those who move to the universal credit system. "There will be no losers," he said.

But anti-poverty campaigners warned that the penalties could expose people "to the risk of destitution".

Oxfam's director of UK poverty, Kate Wareing, said: "Removing benefits and leaving people with no income will result in extreme hardship for them and their families. This sanction, and the proposals to force people to do unpaid work are based on stigma. Most people receiving benefits do want to work, and punishing them as if they are criminals repaying a debt to society is not a fair way to treat someone entitled to support."

Sally Copley, head of UK policy at Save the Children, said: "It is hard to see how Britain's poorest children are going to be helped using sanctions creating a climate of fear. It is children who will suffer when a single mum is told to take a job, but there is not suitable childcare available. It is the children who will suffer when the safety net is withdrawn for three months, living in homes where mums and dads already struggle to put a hot meal on the table or buy a winter coat. Breaking the cycle of poverty is important. Simplifying the benefits system is long overdue. But paying for this by welfare cuts for the poorest families is in no-one's interest."

Labour said the party would offer support for the reforms if they were done properly.

But they warned that the massive cuts imposed elsewhere across the benefits system as the price of securing the investment from the Treasury undermined any potential benefits.

Douglas Alexander, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "We support the underlying principle of simplifying the benefits system and providing real incentives to work. My concern is that [chancellor] George Osborne's recent actions reveal he doesn't support these principles - he has already both complicated the system and undermined incentives to work through changes such as the reduction in working tax credit.

"Some of the key aspects of Iain Duncan Smith's original plan already seem to have been cut and that could mean some people facing bigger barriers to getting back to work. And our overriding concern is that there is a fatal flaw at the heart of these proposals: without work they won't work."

Duncan Smith began by framing the reforms as an attempt to sort out a "structural" problem that he said had "grown through different governments".

He listed statistics showing that people had been "left behind", even in periods of high growth, and remained "detached" from the Labour market. He told MPs that 4.5 million people were out of work before the recession even started.

Currently, 5 million people of working age were on out-of-work benefits, with 1.4 million of those on the benefits for nine out of the last 10 years, and 2.6 million people were claiming incapacity benefits.

Almost 2 million children were living in workless households, one of the worst rates in Europe, he added.

"These reforms are about bringing them back in. I want them to be supported and ready to take up the 450,000 vacancies which even today, as we begin to emerge out of recession, are available in the economy."

He said key to solving the problem was the wider social problems associated with worklessness.

Duncan Smith acknowledged that under the current system, people who found a job could end up losing more than �9 for every �10 they earned. The work and pensions secretary said that, under his reforms, the "perverse disincentives" that make it "risky" for the poorest to move into work would be removed.

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of disability charity Scope, said the reform effort was "encouraging" but unrealistic about the reality of people's lives.

Citing the regime of sanctions planned, Hawkes said: "What about those disabled people who do play by the government's rules? Who try repeatedly to get work but are not successful? The sanctions the government is going to introduce will effectively penalise them, pushing them further into poverty, further away from work and ultimately creating more dependency on the state. The government needs to be clear in its aim of supporting genuine people today as well as introducing robust plans for the future."

The business sector warned that red tape could hamper efforts to create the new jobs required.

Dr Adam Marshall, director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: "Business will support moves to make work pay - because UK plc cannot function efficiently and effectively with millions of people permanently outside the labour market," he said.

"Yet there are challenges too that must be addressed. If private sector companies are to create the jobs needed to employ local people, the government must make it easier for small and medium-sized firms to take on staff - by stripping away burdensome employment regulation, and by ensuring that everyone has the basic skills needed to hold down a job. Businesses will take it from there, and train up the specialist workforce they need to deliver growth."

o Outcome of G20 summit in Seoul in doubt after talks between US and Chinese leaders to end tensions over trade
o David Cameron urges leaders to avoid currency war and rebalance the global economy

Talks between world leaders on ending the growing tensions over global trade and currencies were in the balance today as the G20 summit in Korea entered its crucial final phase.

Talks were held earlier today between US president Barack Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao to head off criticism that both countries were pursuing policies that could trigger a "race to the bottom", harming global trade and delaying recovery from the worst financial crisis since the second world war.

But the outcome of the talks was in doubt as G20 officials drafted the final communique. Significant concessions were unlikely, according to sources close to the discussions. One said the G20 was in a "less heroic phase" and an over-arching deal was unlikely.

China and the US were at loggerheads before the summit over plans by the Federal Reserve to spend $600bn on treasury bonds to boost the ailing US economy. One of the side effects of the move is to drive down the value of the US dollar.

China was angered by the move because it will attract "hot" capital inflows to developing countries and make them less competitive. The Beijing leadership criticised the Obama administration as pursuing policies harmful to free trade and today stepped up the attacks.

Zhang Tao, director of the international department of People's Bank of China, said that Washington "should not force others to take medicine for its own disease", warning that disorderly capital inflows resulting from the Fed's action could hurt emerging markets.

He said: "As emerging countries are important for the global economic recovery, that will greatly increase the downward risks in the world economy."

Before his talks with Hu, whom he has now met seven times in two years, Obama said: "As two of the world's leading economies we have a special obligation to deal with ensuring strong balance and sustained growth."

"The US-China relationship, I think, has become stronger over the last several years, as we've been discussing a whole range of not only bilateral issues but world issues," he said.

Other countries, including Germany, have rounded on the two powerhouse economies for adding to trade imbalances. In behind-the-scenes discussions countries such South Korea are understood to have taken the Chinese to task for insisting on tracking the dollar on its downward path.

David Cameron had earlier urged the G20 summit to avoid a currency war that could harm global growth. Cameron said it was important for leaders at the G20 summit in the Korean capital to address the growing threat from competitive currency devaluations and use global financial institutions to monitor developments.

Addressing a business leaders' conference at the G20 summit, Cameron said rebalancing trade was a priority to win the battle for sustainable growth and prevent another financial crisis.

"We're going to have to make a big argument that trade is good for everybody. We need to deal with this idea that export success for one country is a disaster for other countries. Trade isn't a zero-sum game," he said.

He pointed to a report by the International Monetary Fund showing how trade surpluses were being stockpiled in some countries - such as China and Germany - while deficits grew ever bigger in others, such as the US.

Cameron said: "The issue is this: One of the problems that lay behind the 2008 crisis was the fact that we had a wall of saving in the east and a wall of debt in the west. This massive surplus of cash seeking out places to invest led to the problems," he said.

"According to the IMF, those imbalances are currently getting worse, not better. We mustn't fail to address this issue."

Cameron said he was concerned that complaints about a lack of free trade would trigger a wave of protectionism, taking the world economy back to the 1930s. He said moves should be in the opposite direction, and it was an embarrassment that the Doha free trade agreement had been left unratified.

"One of the main purposes of this G20 should be to show we're going to fight protectionism in all its forms. We're going to fight trade barriers, we're going to fight beggar-my-neighbour policies. We're going to fight currency wars.

"We're going to fight competitive devaluations. We're going to show that this world, these politicians, these leaders, have learned the lessons of the 1930s. We're going to keep the system open rather than see it progressively close," he said.

However, Cameron maintained his government was determined to cut the UK's deficit, despite concerns that global growth remained fragile and it was important to prioritise growth over deficit reduction.

President Obama said he expected the final communique -- which will follow substantive talks on trade, to emphasise the need for policies to encourage growth.

Cameron said: "We absolutely have to deal with [the deficit]. The alternative isn't some wonderland of continuous growth, the alternative is the markets questioning your economy, it's your interest rates rising, it's confidence falling and you see your economy go into the danger zone that others are in," he said.

"Some countries, those with big deficits, need to deal with those deficits. That is not against global growth, that is helping to promote global growth."

Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, said growth was a priority. Before the summit he said it was the natural order of things for countries with growing economies to experience inflows of capital and rising currencies.

He urged G20 nations to devote their energies to sweeping away trade barriers to promote growth.

As if to emphasis the difficulties faced by countries pursuing free trade agreements, president Obama and South Korea's Lee Myung-bak admitted talks to sign a bilateral free trade agreement had foundered. They said negotiators would continue talks to address US concerns that the deal did not do enough to open South Korean markets to US beef and cars.

"We agreed that more time is needed to resolve detailed issues and asked trade ministers to reach a mutually acceptable deal as soon as possible," Lee said.

o Gareth Compton of Birmingham council bailed after questioning
o Councillor 'suspended indefinitely' from Conservative party

Police in Birmingham today arrested a Conservative city councillor who sent a Twitter message saying that the newspaper columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown should be stoned to death.

Alibhai-Brown said last night she would report Gareth Compton, a councillor for the Erdington district, to police following the tweet.

Compton was arrested last night and bailed after questioning. A spokeswoman for West Midlands police said: "We can confirm a 38-year-old man from Harborne has been arrested for an offence under section 127 (1a) of the Communications Act of 2003 on suspicion of sending an offensive or indecent message. He has been bailed pending further inquiries."

The Conservative party said Compton had been suspended indefinitely over the alleged tweet.

A spokesman said: "Language of this sort is not acceptable and as a result Gareth Compton's membership of the Conservative party has been indefinitely suspended pending further investigation."

Compton said the message posted yesterday on his private Twitter account had been "a glib comment" in response to the writer's appearance on Nicky Campbell's Radio 5 Live breakfast show.

The message - now apparently deleted - said: "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."

Alibhai-Brown, who writes columns for the Independent and the London Evening Standard, said last night she regarded his comments as incitement to murder. She told the Guardian: "It's really upsetting. My teenage daughter is really upset too. It's really scared us.

"You just don't do this. I have a lot of threats on my life. It's incitement. I'm going to the police - I want them to know that a law's been broken."

She added that she regarded Compton's remarks as racially motivated because he mentioned stoning.

"If I as a Muslim woman had tweeted that it would be a blessing if Gareth Compton was stoned to death I'd be arrested immediately. I don't think the nasty Tories went away."

In a statement released in a series of tweets, Compton said: "I did not 'call' for the stoning of anybody. I made an ill-conceived attempt at humour in response to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown saying on Radio 5 Live this morning that no politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran. I apologise for any offence caused. It was wholly unintentional."

It is not the first time that a Twitter comment seemingly intended as a joke has landed the sender in trouble with the law.

Later today, Paul Chambers, a 27-year old trainee accountant from South Yorkshire, is expected to hear whether he has successfully appealed against �1,000 fine for a tweet sent when snow closed Robin Hood airport near Doncaster in January when he was due to go away. He posted: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

Student demonstrators broke into Conservative HQ as a protest against higher tuition fees was overshadowed by violence. Was the demonstration a sign of things to come?

Julian Glover argues that protests - even on a large scale - have little effect on policymaking unless they have widespread public support.

Jesse Norman, Conservative MP for Hereford, says that Lib Dems made an error in signing a pledge to abolish tuition fees. Furthermore, he believes politicians are best advised not to make specific policy promises at all.

Iain Duncan Smith has published his much-anticipated welfare reforms. The panel discusses whether it is right to force unemployed people into community work projects. Polly Toynbee argues that Labour ministers did much of the groundwork on incentivising people back into work.

Jesse Norman's new book The Big Society explores the philosophical theories underpinnning the Cameron government. But why did the idea fail to take off during the election campaign? And why are so many Tory MPs still sceptical of it?

Leave your thoughts below.

Government will not have to hold referendum on the transfer of power to Brussels if ministers consider the changes are not 'significant', under legislation published today

The government will not necessarily have to hold a referendum on the transfer of power to Brussels if ministers consider the changes are not "significant", under legislation published today.

The government tabled its promised European Union bill, which will enshrine in law the so-called "referendum lock", requiring any new EU treaties or major changes to existing treaties to be approved in a popular vote.

It follows the coalition agreement which stated that "no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum" - a key demand of the Conservatives.

However, the bill published today would enable ministers to avoid a referendum in certain circumstances if they judged that the transfer of power was not significant.

These would include cases where EU bodies were given the power to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on the UK.

The Foreign Office argues that the exemption is necessary to ensure that the government was not required to hold national referendums on relatively minor changes.

One example being cited was the creation of a new EU body to monitor the progress of member states in meeting their low carbon objectives.

Major changes such as a decision to join the euro or to give up the UK's border controls and sign the Schengen agreement would automatically require a referendum.

However, the move is likely to arouse the suspicion of Euro-sceptics already angry that David Cameron has refused to take the opportunity of proposed changes to the rules governing the eurozone countries to put the whole Lisbon treaty to a referendum in the UK.

Cameron has argued that because the changes tabled by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, did not affect Britain, there was under no need to do so.

The bill confirms that changes that only affect other EU member states would not require approval in a UK referendum.

Under the terms of the legislation, if the government decided that a proposed treaty change should not be put to a referendum, a minister would have to spell out the reasons in a statement to parliament.

The decision would be open to legal challenge through judicial review, and any treaty change would still have to be approved by an act of parliament.

The bill also includes a "sovereignty clause", confirming the principle that parliament has the final say on which laws take effect in the UK, although the Foreign Office acknowledged that this was a "declaratory provision" and would not affect the relationship between EU and UK law.

Europe minister David Lidington said: "Many people in Britain feel disconnected with how the EU has developed, and the decisions that have been taken in their name.

"That is why we are introducing this EU bill, to give people more control over decisions made by the government in the EU in their name.

"This bill ensures that if there is any further handover of power from this country to Brussels, the government will have to seek the British people's consent in a national referendum."

However, the bill was dismissed by the Euro-sceptic Bruges Group, which said that Cameron and the foreign secretary, William Hague, had already given up more power to Brussels.

"Both the referendum lock and the sovereignty clause are just fig leaves designed to hide Cameron's blushes after he and Hague dropped the 'cast-iron guarantee' to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty," said the Bruges Group director, Robert Oulds.

"Every single Conservative MP was elected on the promise that they would actually be taking back powers from Brussels. Yet what we have seen is that, since coming to office in May, the government has actually given the EU more control over this country.

"There is no reason to believe that this latest round of pledges is any more reliable than the original 'cast-iron guarantee', given by Hague and Cameron, so why should we trust them this time?"

Labour dismissed the bill as a "dog's dinner" which would result in lengthy and costly legal wrangling.

"This bill is a sop to Eurosceptics on the Tory backbenches rather than a serious policy for Europe," said shadow Europe minister, Wayne David.

"Holding referenda on major constitutional and economic changes is the right thing to do. But this Bill is a dog's dinner which could lead to costly wrangling in the courts over what it means, and whether we need referenda on tiny changes too."

All welfare systems are a balancing act, but my first thoughts are this white paper will leave a great many frighteningly worse off

"The most radical reform of our welfare system since its inception," boasted Nick Clegg, but that's nonsense. "Across the country households will be better off," he said, at best economical with the truth. Some households may gain but a great many more will be frighteningly worse off. How could it be otherwise when you remember the context: �18bn is being cut from the social security budget.

Start with what's good: Iain Duncan Smith with Lord Freud's expert help, has smoothed out quite a few of the abominable glitches in the social security system. The universal credit does simplify some things, makes claiming a bit easier, and does more to align the taper - the rate at which people lose benefit once they start to earn more. It is easier to work a little without losing. Labour's tax credits already made work pay for virtually everyone - the new system picks up the rest and promises it will always pay for everyone.

The revolution is not in the wrongly named "universal credit", but in the deepest cuts ever imposed on benefits since William Beveridge. As at least a million and half more people may lose their jobs over the next two years, it is brutal to cut their housing benefit after a year by 10%, regardless of how hard they try to find work. It is brutal to throw everyone off the employment support allowance after a year. And it is criminal to take the �30 educational maintenance allowance away from the poorest teenagers doing A-levels, Btecs or apprenticeships. Cutting the childcare credit means many lone parents will have to give up work. Large numbers who have been on incapacity benefit for years, who even in good times were pretty unemployable, will now lose a large slab of their income on the spurious grounds that they could, in theory, be fit for something or other.

If you think most people on benefits are scroungers, then rejoice. If you think employers in this recession will be eager to take on the difficult cases, the marginal mental-health cases, the least skilled, literate or experienced, instead of the crowd of recently employed and ready-to-go-workers who have just tumbled onto the dole, you are an IDS-type optimist. If you know people about to lose their job shortly through no fault of their own, then worry about the treatment they face. All welfare systems are a difficult balance between ensuring incentives to work and preventing the defenceless falling into abject penury. That balance just tipped the wrong way.

These are my immediate first thoughts: I will dig deeper in my column on Saturday.

According to an iol report, Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan is blaming German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the rising cost of Ireland's borrowing.� Perhaps he's been channeling Sarah Carey in today's Irish Times?

Meanwhile RT� notes that

Elsewhere, the Minister for Finance has said the main reason why Irish bonds yields are rising is because of uncertainty surrounding European Union plans for future debt.

However, Brian Lenihan also said it appeared that the markets did not fully believe the bank recapitalisation figures published at the end of September.

The interest rate demanded by investors to lend money to Ireland for ten years was 9.14% at lunchtime.

But, as spotted by Garibaldy, last night The Guardian identified a more likely culprit

Fears that Ireland could be forced into a Greek-style bailout by the European Union or the International Monetary Fund swept through financial markets today after the beleaguered country's borrowing costs soared to levels seen as unsustainable by investors.

Long-term Irish interest rates surged to their highest levels since the launch of the single currency amid growing evidence that repeated bouts of budget austerity have failed to convince international investors that the former Celtic Tiger economy can cope with the banking crisis caused by a boom-and-bust in its housing market.

Attempts by Patrick Honohan, the central bank governor, to reassure investors by stressing that the Irish government was already planning the tough fiscal measures that the IMF would insist upon backfired, and helped push yields on 10-year Irish bonds up 61 basis points to 8.7%.

"Putting Ireland and the IMF in the same sentence can trigger palpitations in the credit markets," said Gavan Nolan, a credit analyst at Markit. "Speculation that the Irish government and the IMF have already reached an agreement was doing the rounds."

Those would be the comments reported here.

Speaking at the International Financial Services Summit 2010 in Dublin, Prof Honohan said the type of policy package the IMF would want to see Ireland putting in place is "very much" the package of fiscal adjustments that the Government is implementing.

He said that Ireland's low corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent would unlikely be a matter of interest to the IMF, as its aim is to get economies growing again so they can repay their loans quickly.

"If we look through history, the IMF has been indispensable for stabilising countries that ," he said.

And on Olli Rehn's activities in Dublin�he added

Prof Honohan did not think European commissioner for economic and monetary affairs Olli Rehn came to Ireland to exert influence on the Government. "I think his role here was to offer the views of the commission," he said.

Even though, as the Irish Times noted, yesterday Brian Lenihan said he is "absolutely" sure the country will not need to seek a bailout from the IMF and European Union.

Today the paper reports

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso signalled the EU was ready to act should countries such as Ireland require assistance.

European officials said they were monitoring developments in Ireland closely, with the Handelsblatt newspaper quoting a German government source who said aid could be unlocked "very quickly" if needed.

"What is important to know is that we have all the essential instruments in place in the European Union and euro zone to act if necessary, but I am not going to make any speculation," Mr Barroso said at a G20 summit in Seoul, when asked whether Brussels would need to act to support Ireland.

It's at times like these that I generally�turn to Miriam Lord in the Irish Times

The day ended with a mystery.

It has emerged that Olli Rehn has a mole in Merrion Street, a chap who reports daily to him on the state of play in Ireland.

Brian Lenihan was anxious to play down the idea that the EU has put a supervisor into his department, poo-poohing the notion of Olli's Eyes and Ears.

Joan Burton didn't.

"He's a tall gentleman from Hungary with glasses," she revealed.

Whatever, shrugged Brian. He doesn't have a "permanent facility" and is not in situ "on a permanent basis".

But he didn't deny that this "EU national who advises the commissioner" is a fixture for the foreseeable future. We can see him now - wearing a trilby, a drab mackintosh and little round spectacles. He carries a briefcase and a rolled-up umbrella.

His name is probably Laszlo. Zither music plays when he approaches.

The inevitable novel will be called Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Mandarin�. We don't know the ending.

Adds� Karl Whelan at The Irish Economy has some thoughts on the movement in the bond yields.

The four-year bond yield, which had been about 3% in early June, reached 5% in late October and, as I write, stands at 8.34%, not so far short of the 8.92% prevailing on the ten-year bond. This suggests that the market is pricing in a debt restructuring in the next few years. (See this earlier post for a discussion of the relationship between bond yields and default probabilities.)

Even more disturbing have been the movements in the two-year bond. The yield on this bond had been about 2% as recently as June. It started November at 4% and, as I write, has now soared to 6.66%. Given that pessimists are likely to be assuming that Ireland will be borrowing from the EFSF in two years time, the implicit pricing in of a high probability of a debt default\restructuring as early as 2012 strikes me as unwarranted. But it illustrates the scale of the current negative sentiment towards Ireland in the bond market.

As of yet, the government has not been able to turn this sentiment around. An optimist might argue that passing the budget, resolving the political uncertainty via a general election and the emergence of solid evidence of a return to sustained growth might, together, achieve the required improvement in sentiment. A pessimist would argue that it's too late.

Yesterday the counts took place for the English party elections.

The Acting Returning Officer, David Allworthy, reported the results as follows:

English representative to Federal Executive:
Brian Orrell: 46
Michael Wheatley: 32

English representative to Federal Policy Committee:
Dirk Hazell: 10
Geoff Payne: 68

English Executive Committee (12 places):
Nigel Ashton
Stan Collins
Dawn Davidson
Kay Friend
Anders Hanson
Sean Hooker
Sal Jarvis
Steve Jarvis
Brian Orrell
Geoff Payne
Neil Walton
Mike Wheatley

The turnout was 65.5% (higher than the average of recent years).

See here for the breakdown of votes for each stage of the count, courtesy of Colin Rosenstiel.

There will be a ballot in the by-election for the final two places for directly elected places on the ECC. A ballot paper will be included in the EC Final Agenda mailing, which goes out at the end of this week.

IBM is to announce a deal with the Norwegian health service, which will see Big Blue rollout a SAP enterprise resource planning (ERP) over the next four years.

read more

Tony Hunter, chief executive of N E Lincs Council, gives an interview to LocalGov.co.uk about North East Lincolnshire priorities and achievements of the council:

Grappling with the impact of spending cuts and the declining fishing industry gives North East Lincolnshire's chief executive, Tony Hunter, plenty of challenges - but he remains optimistic, he tells Michael Burton
One of the new unitaries created in the 1990s, North East Lincolnshire, as a name, hardly gives any clues to its main population centres. Yet, its principal town is Grimsby, well-known in the public's mind as a fishing port.

North East Lincolnshire Chief, Tony Hunter Like most UK ports, its economy is struggling. The fishing industry is a shadow of its former glory. The docks are in urgent need of regeneration. As a result, the council grapples with socio-economic challenges at a time when its own organisation is under severe budgetary pressure.

In September, Tony Hunter, North East Lincolnshire's chief executive, sent out letters to all his staff announcing consultation on changing terms and conditions.

These include ending payments for the first three days of each period of sickness, changes to the current car-user benefits by removing essential car-user status, and removing payments for enhanced overtime during weekends and bank holidays. Staff have also been asked to register their interest in taking voluntary early retirement or voluntary severance. The council is also looking at flexible working, such as reduced hours or career breaks.

In his letter, Tony said the council was 'stronger, financially, than many other councils', and therefore, had not had to introduce large-scale redundancies, but instead could 'take more planned and measured approach'.

He says the council, although emerging from years of under-performance, 'has robust finances and a sense of vision', and adds: 'Although tough times are ahead, I believe we can come out stronger.

'We've got a big cost-reduction agenda, identifying our main priorities, and we need to take short-term measures. We've also embarked on a Future Shape programme, reconfiguring ourselves, although we already have well integrated services in health and care.'

Tony comes from a social services background and was made an OBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours List this year for services to social care.

He was brought up in Doncaster and did PPE at Oxford. Trained as a social worker, he joined Doncaster City, then Barnsley MBC, and later Barnado's. Of the charity, he says, 'it had an incredible reach, yet only the budget of a county council social services department'.

You can read the rest of the interview at http://tinyurl.com/35c9bkh

�New Lib Dem plans will protect our local Post Offices after years of Labour cuts.
Your Ward Councillors�are pleased that the Liberal Democrats in government are delivering on another one of their promises.

Under Labour 5,000 Post Offices were closed.The Lib Dem plan will see the Post� Office:

• Becoming a One-stop shop.

• A central point of our community life again.

• Investing �1.3 billion into the Post Office Network, protecting the 11,500 remaining Post Offices.

• Having more services.

• Offering information for jobseekers,

• Access to over 80% of bank accounts including RBS and NatWest.

• Longer opening hours.Post Office services being offered at the shop till.

• Small, local shops providing some Post Office services.

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): This may be a naive question, but box 2.7 in the spending review says: "The Government expects the total amount of funding for the scheme to be in the region of �1.5 billion."

That is the envelope that we have been debating, and that figure matters quite a lot, especially for those other policyholders. However, the same box says that "�1 billion will be allocated to the Payments Scheme in this Spending Review period, which will cover...the initial costs of the first three years of WPA"- with-profits annuitants-"regular payments, and all payments to other policyholders."

Can the Minister explain the difference between the �1 billion and the �1.5 billion, and say how the timings will be affected? Presumably the other �500 million will arrive after the spending review period, but I am a bit confused on that point.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which gives me the opportunity to clarify the make-up of the �1.5 billion. The figure includes the full cost of the losses to with-profits annuitants-approximately �620 million-which will be made through regular payments. However, taking into account the pressures on the public purse, the Treasury could allocate only �1 billion over the first three years of the spending review. That will cover two things: the first three years of payments to with-profits annuitants, and lump-sum payments to all other policyholders and to the estates of deceased with-profits annuitants.

It is important to start to pay off with-profits annuitants' losses quickly, alongside the lump-sum payments to other policyholders. About �225 million of the �1 billion is for with-profits annuitants and their estates, leaving approximately �775 million for lump-sum payments to non-with-profits annuitants. The Towers Watson estimate of �620 million for with-profits annuity losses leaves approximately �395 million for the rest of the WPA losses from 2014-15 onwards. Those who are quicker at mental arithmetic than me will have worked out that the total comes to about �1.4 billion. The balance is a contingency, because the payments to with-profits annuitants are based on their longevity. We hope that they live long and healthy lives, and that buffer is set aside to cover this need. That is how the maths works out.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Could my hon. Friend provide further clarification on the tax status of those receiving such payments?

Mr Hoban: My right hon. Friend pre-empts a point that I was going to refer to in the clause stand part debate. He gives me an opportunity to say now that the payments will be free of tax.