John Glen MP: How to avoid becoming a fast food opposition

John Glen is MP for Salisbury and a member of the Defence Select Committee.

Having sat through the debate called by the opposition on youth unemployment and jobs last week, I had plenty of time to reflect again on the business of Opposition. What a grim business it is. The Opposition spent the time shouting and pointing as they randomly plucked unrecognisable statistics to make a political point; gratuitously avoiding any attempt to project a costed alternative, yet desperate to win the “war” of the sound-bites.

I have three observations about what Labour need to do if they are to avoid prolonged exile from the Government benches and avoid becoming purveyors of fast food politics – i.e. put together in a hurry, looks good when you grab it, tastes good when you first eat it but leaves you hungry a few hours later and needs to be offset by sustained counter-measures for a long time afterwards:

John Glen MP: The government’s adoption plans will help avoid barriers to finding permanent homes for children in care

John Glen is the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, and a member of the Defence Select Committee. 

I applaud the announcements this week from Tim Loughton MP, the Minister for Children and Families, urging councils to reduce the bureaucracy surrounding adoption, and to speed up the process. As Edward Timpson MP pointed out in his excellent article on the subject, the measures put in place that seek to reduce the time it takes for children to be adopted could make a significant difference to hundreds of children each year. Martin Narey, the government’s adoption tsar says that “we need early identification of adoption - when it is clearly best for the child - and an administrative and legal system which completes the adoption much more quickly than at present”. The government clearly recognise this as good advice and are acting upon it.

Current government policy rightly focuses on the importance of permanence. Finding a permanent home for looked-after children is a key objective behind the current legislation that governs the fostering and adoption of children. A plan for permanence, for example, must be in place four weeks after a child goes into local authority care.

Yet adoption has often been too low on the list of possible permanent options for children in care. It is considered as an equal “route to permanence” alongside long-term fostering, living with family and friends, or special guardianship.

John Glen MP: Access targets will lower the quality of our top Universities

John Glen is MP for Salisbury, and a member of the Defence Select Committee

As UCAS admissions start dropping into the mailboxes of university admissions tutors, it is likely that the new policy and sanctions of the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) will be weighing heavily on their minds. OFFA is responsible for ensuring fair access to the UK’s universities for students from socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Earlier this year, in his guidance letter to the Director of OFFA, the Universities Minister stated that OFFA should “focus on the outcomes of access and not just the inputs and processes” – and OFFA have the ability to void an access agreement or levy fines for universities who don’t meet their access targets.

The threat of sanctions for universities who miss their access targets assumes that it is the fault of the universities that students from deprived backgrounds are not being admitted. The universities are certainly responsible for the outreach work that they do to encourage applications from as wide a range of backgrounds as possible– and in this respect the continued focus of OFFA on “inputs” is important. Universities should be encouraging students from any social or educational background to apply, and the excellent work that outreach and schools liaison officers do should be continued and extended.

However, OFFA’s approach is to focus on the outcomes of admissions – and hold universities responsible for missing their access targets for admitting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This is a confused policy, because university admissions tutors have no incentive to discriminate against able applicants. Anyone responsible for university admissions will be seeking only to admit the best students –those who will be capable of benefiting from what their courses have to offer.  If universities are doing all they can to encourage able applicants to apply, then it is difficult to see the point of effectively seeking to place the blame on them if they miss their access targets. The reason that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not being admitted to top universities must be that some schools are not developing the abilities of talented students. They are not being encouraged to apply, properly prepared for university entrance processes, or being given the wider skills needed to succeed at degree level. This needs tackling urgently and is being done so by the pupil premium and targeted investments at the level of schools – not just at the point when applications for university are contemplated.

John Glen MP: We need a change in direction... there are deeper causes for the rioting over recent nights

John Glen is the Conservative MP for Salisbury.

Watching the violence in our major cities over recent nights I have been thinking long and hard about the deeper causes. The opportunity to run rampage, steal and loot, destroy property and cause havoc and generate fear does not just happen overnight. The answer, for my money, is to be found in three inter-related causes.

Firstly, we need to think about the values imbued in our young people at school and throughout our society. The presumption for some young people is that the state owes them a living and that nothing is their fault. This attitude has arisen because we are too reluctant to objectively measure attainment and provide proper discipline in schools with absolute values behind them. With a backdrop of intermittent parenting, children do not feel loved and cared for so they, in turn, don’t care about what the implications of their behaviour will have on others. For some, school has become an occasional drop-in social club, not a place where they go to learn, where the teachers command respect and where the education received is seen as the passport to employment and independence. Without challenging the “all must have prizes” culture - regardless of what the individual’s own input is - we will continue to see feral youths emerging from our schools poorly prepared for the real world. We are failing them unless we insist on basic standards of personal behaviour enforced with a zero tolerance approach to wrong-doing. I do acknowledge the challenge of providing meaningful employment opportunities and that this is acute in some parts of the country. We must listen carefully to sensible voices from these communities and grasp the sense of hopelessness and respond to it. The massive expansion of apprenticeships is a welcome policy to provide new pathways to our teenagers, but more targeted interventions will be needed.

John Glen MP: Without extra spending after 2014 our armed forces won't be able to deliver full spectrum capability

John Glen is MP for Salisbury and a member of the Defence Select Committee.

Today’s publication of the Defence Select Committee’s report into the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) marks the end of several months of evidence taking and much considered debate amongst the committee. We found that without significant investment in the spending period after 2014 the UK’s Armed Forces will not be able to do what is asked of them in the second half of this decade and meet the aspirations of the Future Force 2020 as set out in the SDSR.

Throughout the evidence sessions few of the witnesses, many drawn from the senior echelons of the armed forces, would directly admit that the current status of the Forces equates to “below critical mass” but the single service chiefs were prepared to contradict the Prime Minister’s view that the UK still has a full spectrum defence capability.  I think it is highly doubtful whether co-operation with our allies alone will fill the gaps given the challenges of aligning political and operational needs. Personally, I feel very uncertain whether, in a post-Sarkozy age, French popular opinion would allow us to use their aircraft carrier to get to the Falklands in a hurry – even if both countries had signed up to a carefully worded agreement several years before.

It remains unclear as to how the SDSR’s seven military tasks and the Defence Planning Assumptions that underpin them can be aligned with decisions such as those on the Aircraft Carriers and Nimrod MRA . Quite clearly the need for savings over-rode the capability requirements of the Armed Forces. The justification, with some reason, was that our primary strategic security threat is the need to deliver the financial security of our country –without fixing the deficit we wouldn’t have a country worth saving.  Nevertheless, notwithstanding the tough decisions made in the SDSR, if we are not to be cut short we need to see greater clarity on how the gap will be filled in the next spending period and how the capabilities recently lost will be regenerated.

John Glen MP: Liam Fox in for the long haul at the MoD

John Glen is MP for Salisbury and a member of the Defence Select Committee.

Yesterday the Defence Select Committee published its first report in this Parliament on operations in Afghanistan.  In essence, we found that our excellent UK Forces were deployed in Helmand for three years from 2006 without the necessary personnel, equipment or intelligence to succeed in their mission. The reason for this, was a failure in military and political co-ordination. Though we acknowledge that our forces have done an amazing job and achieved the best tactical outcomes in the circumstances we also make the point that the decision to move UK Armed Forces into the South of Afghanistan in early 2006 was not fully thought through.

It appears as if the MoD did not anticipate that the presence of the Armed Forces in Helmand might stir up a hornets’ nest, especially as much of the intelligence was contradictory. We hope that this report will stimulate an analysis of the way senior military officers in Whitehall interact with Ministers. I believe there needs to be a bit more “Not, unless”... rather than always “Yes” when new missions are considered. Honest military advice that gives a full and accurate account of what is really happening on the ground is paramount if we are to avoid decision making where optimism in Whitehall triumphs over grim realities in theatre. No armed forces are invincible if deployed in inadequate numbers in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We will also publish our report on the SDSR in the very near future. This report is the culmination of several months of evidence-taking in the Select Committee. I won’t reveal the contents here but what I can say is that I have not yet met one constituent or analyst who welcomes the conclusions from the perspective of net impact on MoD; but equally I have not met one person who has given a coherent perspective of how they would have spent the same envelope of money differently (i.e. how the same pot of money could have been spent more effectively within the department).

John Glen MP: Afghanistan could produce a greater security threat to Britain if the post-2014 settlement is not properly implemented

John Glen is MP for Salisbury and a member of the Defence Select Committee.

Last week I visited Afghanistan with the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. We travelled to Camp Bastion in Helmand and visited our troops, meeting both civilian and military leaders there and in Kabul. We also met the special representatives from NATO and the UN and President Hamid Karzai.

I left in a more optimistic mood than when I arrived – there is no doubt that significant progress is being made but I was left with a sense that a big gap remains between domestic attitudes to the war as compared to the complex and fragile situation on the ground.

Whilst the public’s attitude seems to remain very positive and supportive of the selfless sacrifices of our serving soldiers - and rightly so - there seems to be a growing frustration in some quarters with the underlying rationale for being in the country at all. Very often I hear the line “Afghanistan is a lost cause – we need to get out as soon as possible”.

My impression is that the focus on building capacity amongst the Afghans to find sustainable self-directed security and governance models is gaining ground. It is unlikely that this process will run smoothly but when combined with very positive steps in repelling the insurgent Taliban, there is a reasonable expectation that the country will find some sort of equilibrium later this decade.

John Glen MP: Value for Money mindset needed across government.

Having worked for 10 years for a large international management consulting firm which routinely won very large government contracts, I believe that the pressure Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude MP is exerting on procurement processes for IT and other government contracts has to be welcome.  Too often over the last decade, I saw examples of where the scope for massive IT projects was changed numerous times by government departments, and the cost went up and up and up. Often this meant that the public purse suffered and that the project was not delivered in the way originally intended.

Changing processes, opening up to new, smaller suppliers and increasing the transparency of the procurement process will deliver savings. A tight focus on margins and the re-negotiation of contracts will also reduce wasteful expenditure in the short term. However, the bigger challenge will be to implement a revolution in the mindset across Government which means that, in future, before any significant contracts are awarded by any Minister, we know why we are buying something and what we are going to get in return - and that the purchase gives the taxpayer increased value for money.

The real issue is not who delivers government services, but clarity over what returns will be made on investment. I am always confused when governments do not articulate clearly what public sector value looks like: of course it is not the same as a return on investment in a business, but the Government needs to show clearly what the outcome expected is from taxpayers' investment - it is not the Government's money, after all.

I don't have a set view of what size a provider organisation needs to be, or how big the contract a government offers should be.  What I'm more concerned about is that government can enable better social, economic and health outcomes for the people they serve. So whilst the changes afoot must be welcome, we need to bring into focus the bottom line that matters to voters - an improvement in their experience of Government, and a clear picture of what they can expect from the money that we spend on their behalf.

John Glen MP: Employment outcomes from tuition fees policy should measure success

John Glen is MP for Salisbury.

Over the weekend there has been some speculation over the voting position of our Lib Dem coalition partners on the increase in tuition fees. An "en masse" abstention was mooted but now we hear that Vince Cable  is personally committed to the policy. Clearly, to committed Conservatives there are  also compromises across some policy areas which are difficult - especially in the area of constitutional reform - but politics is always a difficult blend of principle and pragmatism - the challenge is to keep the first element a bigger part of the process! Coalition means compromise on all sides.

For me one important test for the success of the new policy is whether it will enable the fulfilment of potential from wherever it comes. The policy we have does enable young people from less well off backgrounds to know that they won't need to pay back their fees until they earn £21,000 and extra funds will be available to encourage those from those backgrounds to gain additional support. In Wiltshire we have One Degree More which is aiming to expand the funds available for making grants to those who may not otherwise apply to university. An excellent initiative.

However, the other important test is will the new policy encourage the delivery of relevant and useful courses which, across the country as a whole, allow a measure of education for education's sake, but also will it enable an increase in the aggregate skills in employable disciplines to facilitate economic growth and allow young people to meet their aspirations and potential. Personally, I have always rejected Labour's target of 50% of people going to university in 2010 but I also reject the view that university is right for everyone. The Coalition government's massive expansion of apprenticeship opportunities will help but the real challenge in this area is to invigorate the reputation and status of non-university career tracks too. It is the left which has the chip on its shoulder with respect to university education whereas many of the most successful business-people and wealth creators did not go to university. It is my hope that the combined effect of the new policies will bring greater scrutiny over what return students can expect from their degrees resulting in an increase in value for money. The outcome we want is better educated young people doing more useful courses leading to the fulfilled ambitions they had when they left school. This has to be better than the many young graduates who currently leave university courses with big debts AND the even bigger challenge of making their degrees seem relevant to prospective employers.

If the coalition delivers improved outcomes for all young people and enables the less well off to meet their aspirations in the same way then the change in policy will be a success. Focusing entirely on the level of debt without the change we hope to see in outcomes is bound to be difficult sum to balance. By recognising it is not just about how many "go to uni" but how many get a job they are happy with afterwards, the policy can be more fairly judged. 

The vacuum at the heart of Labour's policy review

by John Glen

Having spent a little time working for the Conservative Party during our time in Opposition, I am very interested to learn of Labour's approach to their policy review now that they are on the the other side of the fence. The overwhelming reaction I had listening to Ed Milliband yesterday and Peter Hain today was the lack of clear direction on which their review will be based.

One consequence of the coalition and the inevitable tough decisions that have had to be taken is that the electorate will be even more cynical about attempts to fudge the hard realities of government with an attempt to suck up to the prevailing emotional state that will exist in the tough year ahead. The electorate's sentiments will change, but their need for rigour and principled leadership will be even greater from now on - windy rhetoric won't win votes in 2015.

It is easy for Ed Milliband to seek to identify with  the immediate sentiment of disgruntled students or the frustration of the undefined "squeezed middle" by spouting rhetoric on the disclosure of bankers' pay and graduate tax but in the end the electorate want substance.  They will want to see alignment between the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Chancellor, they will need to be sure that the numbers add up, and want those who seek to lead us do so because they have a coherent alternative vision, rather than merely a desire to return to power.

But, even more than all this, the electorate will expect to see policy prescriptions that offer a coherent narrative of the problems the country faces - not a discredited ideological dogma (i.e. socialism) applied opportunisitcally and inconsistently to a manifesto draft on the basis that the electorate will believe anything they are told about an alternative approach, because the present one is not so easy today.

In my surgery yesterday I had a lively conversation with a constituent who expressed frustration that the rich were not being made to pay for the banking crisis they caused.  I listened carefully to her views, though I am sure she was not a "natural supporter". However, on reflection, the conversation felt far removed from the deeper understanding of the vast majority of the hundreds of hard working constituents I speak to who understand that there is no quick fix to the country's problems.

A sentimental appeal to class war prejudices will not win the next election. Ed Milliband will need to articulate more than a willingness to listen and that he is on the side of 90% of the population (his apparent definition of the squeezed middle): we all came into politics with that bit clear. Given that the public recognise that the cuts are due, in the largest part, to Labour's recent chronic over expenditure, shocking waste and passionate belief in big Government, Miliand will also have a lot of explaining to do to make people believe that another spell of Labour Government will not bring more of what we now have to endure.

The author is the MP for Salisbury

Do we need to raise taxes?

On this morning's Today programme David Cameron refused to rule out tax rises to restore the nation's public finances.  Speaking at 8.35am BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson suggested it was only a matter of 'when' the Tories would be considering tax increases.  Last week a former adviser to George Osborne recommended higher taxes.  Yesterday, ConservativeHome asked some prominent centre right commentators to answer the question: 'Do we need to raise taxes?'  These are four 'no' answers.

Oliver March Hartwich, Chief Economist of Policy Exchange:

"There can be no doubt about it: The economic prospects for Britain do not look rosy. Nor are the forecasts for the public finances any better. For the time that a new Conservative government may be elected, in 2010, economists forecast a budget deficit between £95bn and £150bn - or 6 to 9% of GDP. Deficits of such proportions are not sustainable beyond a very short period of time without causing considerable damage, so a new government should make reducing the deficit its first priority. But does this mean raising taxes? Not necessarily. The alternative is to curb public spending. That's why all big government projects (e.g. the costly ID card scheme or other big IT projects) should be put on hold. While this would not endanger public service delivery, it would nevertheless help the consolidation of the state's finances. Cutting such spending is the better alternative to increasing the tax burden in economically difficult times."

Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of The TaxPayers' Alliance:

"Winston Churchill is not often quoted in economic debates, but one of his pearls of wisdom is very apt for the current economic circumstances. Churchill likened raising taxes to generate prosperity to standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up. If a new Conservative government tries this approach to plug the deficit, it will be similarly futile. Instead, the Party should be looking to cut spending to generate the funds to either cut the deficit or, even better, cut taxes. For example, scrapping Regional Development Agencies would save £2.3 billion. Freezing civil service recruitment as Margaret Thatcher did in 1979 and Oliver Letwin proposed at the last election would, after ten years, save £3.3 billion a year. Just think what cutting civil service numbers would save. When Ronald Reagan was elected President, he appointed the Grace Commission to root out wasteful Federal Spending. By the 1990s, it had saved the US taxpayer $10 trillion. Boris Johnson has appoint Patience Wheatcroft to root out waste, and is now freezing the GLA precept. The first announcement of a Conservative Treasury should be the appointment of a Waste Tsar to go through Gordon Brown's dodgy books with a fine toothcomb. Then they will find the money to plug the deficit (and, hopefully, cut taxes) without imposing extra burdens on already over-stretched households."