Latest news with #InstituteForGovernment
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
No 10 accused of ‘control freakery' over ban on civil servants speaking at events
No 10 has been accused of 'control freakery' after issuing guidance that bans civil servants from any level of speaking at events where journalists are present or from answering questions. The guidance, sent out from No 10 several weeks ago, was issued to ensure that ministers, rather than senior civil servants, should be the spokespeople for the government and at the forefront of communications with the public. Senior officials may be allowed to speak at public events on a case by case basis if they have gone through rigorous clearance requirements and inform No 10 so that it can be scheduled or 'gridded'. However, there is a presumption against them speaking where media are present or where they might have to take part in a question and answer session. Civil servants were told any such event 'should not go ahead'. It had previously been reported by the Times that military chiefs had been restricted from making speeches where media were present – but the guidance has been sent out more widely and applies to all civil servants. A senior government source defended the changes, saying: 'I don't think it should be controversial that government policy is announced and explained by ministers.' But several senior civil servants said that the guidance had already had a chilling effect on engagement with the world outside Whitehall, with one blaming 'control freakery from the centre'. It is understood some Treasury officials took a decision to pull out of an Institute for Government (IfG) event this week as a result of the advice, leading to it being cancelled. The IfG criticised the guidance, with programme director Alex Thomas and director-general Hannah White, saying: 'This is an overreach and will damage the quality of government and public discourse.' They said the clearance requirements were 'defensible but heavy-handed' but added: 'The No10 communications team has banned any official from speaking at events that include question and answer sessions, or where the media are expected to be in attendance, seemingly so that ministers are the only, rather than the primary, people able to represent the government in public. 'The strict nature of the guidance implies a very narrow view of what it is that officials do when they engage in public, and a failure to appreciate what the consequences might be of such restrictions.' They also highlighted that Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould had called for 'a civil service that is connected to the British people', saying that 'closing discussion down like this sends the opposite signal'. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion There was previously a furore in 2015 when Tory cabinet minister Francis Maude changed the rules to say that government employees are only allowed to speak to the media with prior permission from a minister. Government sources said the guidance around speaking in front of media had long been in place and insisted it did not amount to a ban. They also pointed to recent instances where military chiefs and Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, had recently spoken in public. A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: 'The principle of civil servants rules around media engagement are well longstanding and established, having been clearly outlined in the civil servant management code 2016 and the civil service code. 'It has always been the case, and a constitutional principle, that ministers are ultimately accountable for decisions making to parliament and the public – so it is right they are routinely scrutinised by the media and MPs.' Earlier this month, No 10 was criticised for setting terms that prevented media from reporting speeches made by military chiefs at a Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) conference. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the chief of the air staff, and Gen Sir Jim Hockenhull, the head of strategic command, were among those whose speeches were not allowed to be made public because they were made 'off the record' and on 'not for reporting' terms – in contrast to speeches given at the event by leaders from foreign militaries.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Nearly 100,000 adults in England denied state-funded social care due to cuts
Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied government-funded social care because of a decade's worth of spending cuts, a Guardian analysis has revealed, as ministers come under mounting pressure to increase funding for the sector. The analysis, which is based on a study by the Institute for Government (IfG), shows the number of people in England receiving subsidised care has fallen far more quickly than the country's disability rate. The figures highlight how a range of government cuts have put so much pressure on the English social care service that it is leaving tens of thousands of people without the access to long-term care that they would have received 15 years ago. Stuart Hoddinott, the associate director of the IfG, said: 'Financial pressure means local authorities with high levels of demand are forced to ration services to people who would receive care elsewhere. 'That injustice is compounded when caring responsibilities fall to friends and family, many of whom leave the workforce or reduce working hours to care for loved ones. The government should ensure that funding for local government reflects the need for services and that it doesn't pass the costs of care on to unpaid relatives.' The social care sector has faced a financial squeeze since 2010 thanks to cuts to local government budgets. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has found that councils' core budgets are 18% lower per person in real terms than they were in 2010, with many of the cuts feeding through to social care. With less money to pay staff, the sector has faced an employment crisis, which it has partly filled by hiring workers from abroad, many of whom have been scammed or abused in the process. Experts say local authorities have rationed care by judging fewer people as needing it than they used to and putting more people on short-term care plans rather than long-term ones. Meanwhile the Westminster government has also restricted access to government-funded care by freezing the financial threshold at which people qualify for state support since 2010. The Labour government continued that practice earlier this year when it announced the rules for 2025-26. The net effect of these changes have been to restrict the number of people receiving long-term care, even as the population gets older. The IfG's report shows the proportion of the adult population receiving long-term social care has dropped from 2.3% in 2003-04 to 1.4% now, an estimated decrease of more than 250,000 people. This decline has happened almost entirely in people aged 65 and over. The report shows that 8.2% of older adults received long-term care in 2003-04 compared with 3.6% in 2023-24. The Guardian has used the IfG's figures to compare the number of people receiving long-term social care with the number of people living with disabilities, which experts say is a good proxy for need. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The analysis shows that had access to social care continued rising in line with disability rates, more than 98,000 more people would be on government-funded care plans now than actually are. Mark Franks, a director at the Nuffield Foundation, which also contributed to the report, said: 'The social care system is subject to big variations in quality and a patchwork of strained funding arrangements. These lead to both rationing of care and big variations in quality and availability determined by where people live rather than greatest need.' Part of the problem has been fuelled by perceived unfairnesses in the formula for allocating central government money to local authorities, which did not take account of factors like deprivation. The government signalled its intention to change that on Friday, launching a consultation into a new funding formula that would mean less money going to wealthier councils in the south-east and more to deprived and rural areas. But ministers are also under pressure to mitigate the effect of the government's decision to increase both the minimum wage and national insurance contributions for employers. The Nuffield Trust has estimated the two decisions will cost independent social care employers nearly £3bn in 2025-26, with the government now looking to find extra money to make up the shortfall. The IfG report says: 'Rationing care is not cost free. The burden of reduced access to care can often fall on friends and family – predominantly poorer people and women – who step in to provide unpaid care. 'This is both unfair, and indirectly expensive for the government, as these people are less likely to be able to work full-time (or at all). Increasing access to care can therefore support the government's goal of improving workforce participation.'
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband is laying a trap for Nigel Farage
If Reform UK wins the next election, scrapping net zero is first on their list of policies. Party leader Nigel Farage believes the move could save tens of billions over the next parliament, freeing up funds for tax breaks and benefits boosts. Labour's Ed Miliband, on the other hand, appears to be building his platform on preventing this coming to pass. If Labour can block Reform by triumphing at the ballot box, that's all well and good. If it can't, then there are other tools. As the New Statesman has noted, Miliband's newfound enthusiasm for community wind projects may partly be an attempt to 'future-proof' net zero, pushing things through today that will be tricky to unwind tomorrow. Underhand, possibly, but potentially effective. And it's an approach we could well see expand to other elements of the policy in the near future. Reform's targeted savings from the transition to net zero are already under fire. While the party believes it's possible to save £225bn over the next parliament, the Institute for Government (whose report the figures are partly based on) has argued that some of this sum constitutes private sector spending. Just as important, however, is the question of how much of it will be easily cut. Depending on which analysis you follow, spending over the rest of this parliament could average somewhere between £13bn and £19bn per year, with the latest Climate Change Committee Carbon Budget suggesting that anywhere between £6bn and £23bn of public funding could be needed in 2035. Over the period to 2050, one Office for Budget Responsibility report (now a little old) estimated the net cost at £344bn to the public sector, with the downside risk at £553bn. These are large sums. The upper end – £22bn or so each year – would be enough to fund the reversal of the winter fuel payments cuts (£1.65bn per year), raise the personal allowance by £1,250 (£11.1bn), scrap the two-child benefit cap (£3.4bn) and add another 0.2pc of GDP onto the defence budget – covering almost half the gap between Labour's distant 3pc ambition and the mooted Nato 3.5pc target. It's also the case that these sums could be underestimated. The Climate Change Committee's analysis shows net zero coming in at a net annual cost of 0.2pc of GDP per year over the next quarter century, or roughly £4bn per year, with the costs front-loaded and net savings towards 2050. But underlying these figures are some very optimistic assumed cost curves for the future price of electricity capacity, including a forecast for offshore wind unit costs to fall by 39pc over the next 25 years. Now, this might happen. But it's worth noting that the UK's 2023 auction round for renewable energy projects resulted in no bids at all for offshore wind. These auctions award 'contracts for difference', which pay producers a set rate per unit of electricity produced. If the market rate is below that price, the producer receives a subsidy. If it's above it, then they pay the difference back. Barring a period between 2021 and 2023 when gas prices spiked over tensions and then outright war in Ukraine, these payments have tended to be large and positive: producers receive above-market-rate prices. Despite this, offshore wind was a no-go. In the subsequent auction round, the Government raised the maximum price on offer by 66pc, with the eventual contracts awarded coming in at 58pc above the previous record low. Even this wasn't quite enough. Ørsted's Hornsea 4 project won its funding in that round in September 2024. By March this year, it had been discontinued on the grounds of 'adverse developments relating to continued increase of supply chain costs, higher interest rates and an increase in the risk to construct and operate Hornsea 4 on the planned timeline'. Poof! 2.4 gigawatts (GW) of planned capacity vanished into the ether, just as the plan is to boost it from 15GW to 88GW by 2040. It's a neat illustration of one of net zero's risks. If other technologies also stall out on cost reductions, if delays to projects push the mooted benefits further back into the future, if higher interest rates raise the cost of capital, or if the costs of projects slip in typical fashion, then the costs of the transition could rise further still. And that uncertainty makes scrapping net zero even more appealing for Reform. A policy which they believe will cut energy bills – contracts for difference, the renewables obligation feed-in tariffs and the guarantee of origin system have added £280 to annual household costs between them, before we get to balancing payments and transmission costs – is also a way to work towards balancing the books and reducing fiscal risks. It's a win-win. If, that is, they can pull it off. The concern will be that Labour is trying to tie their hands, setting up contracts and legal commitments well in advance of the next election that will make it extremely hard for a future government to change course. There are early signs the party is moving in this direction, with the next auction round for renewable subsidies taking the approach of inviting bids first towards a targeted capacity, then setting a cash budget after reviewing them. Combined with Miliband's rush to complete decarbonisation of the grid by 2030, and increasing pressure on the private sector to follow along with schemes incentivising electrification of home heating and transport, and the intention could well be to tie Reform's hands. However, Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK and the party's energy spokesman, isn't worried. 'Miliband is absolutely trying to lock us into his net zero plans,' he told me on Wednesday. 'And they're trying to tie up as many contracts as possible now to bind our hands when we win office – you can see that with the switch in renewable energy policy from cash budgets to capacity targets'. But just as Labour can play games with contracts and commitments, so too can Reform. 'We'll claw the public's money back by charging a windfall tax equal to the subsidy awarded, and bar producers from charging that tax back to the consumer,' Tice said. 'Wind farms that need promises of huge public subsidies to finish construction won't be economically viable. And battery storage systems will be outright banned on health and safety grounds; they are dangerous and toxic.' The result is a battle of pre-commitments. Miliband appears to be urging the private sector to pile in on net zero plans, waving the prospect of taxpayer funds at potential partners, and finding ways to make legally binding agreements that will be hard to unpick. Reform, however, isn't planning to unpick them, but to instead follow Miliband's example in the North Sea: restrict operating conditions, tax profits, and drive the value of projects to zero. The effect is to introduce considerable political risk into net zero projects, but potentially also to tempt Labour into finding ways to hand out funds upfront. All eyes on this space: whether Reform's pledges can succeed in scaring off the renewables sector could determine its ability to win the next election.
