Conservatives Watch

FAMILY BREAKDOWN

Mr Cameron’s speech at Relate (9 June 2008) echoed the key message of Breakthrough Britain about families: that the government is inextricably involved in family life, and so the question is how not whether, it interacts with families.

1.    We proposed enhancing the couple element in Working Tax Credit so that the ratio between WTC for a family and for a lone parent is the same as the ratio under the present income support system. (See 4.4.2.)

David Cameron has signalled that the Conservatives will “bring an end to the couple penalty” in the tax credits and benefits system.[i]

2.    We proposed a transferrable tax allowance for married couples. (See 4.4.3.)

Mr Cameron has promised to change the tax and benefits system “to make them more family friendly” and to “recognise marriage in the tax system.”[ii]

3.    We proposed more flexible working hours for young parents. (See 4.5.0.)

Mr Cameron has supported this idea, and it forms part of the thinking of the ‘Women in the World Today’ policy platform.

4.    We proposed that the tax system should be rebalanced to give extra support to those families where one partner stays at home to look after the children. (4.4.5.)

‘Women in the World Today’ supported this recommendation. Theresa May said "There are obviously families where women choose to stay at home. What we want to do is to have a situation where women and families are able to choose what's going to work for them."[iii]

5.    We proposed that government must recognise and tackle the bias towards state-provided nurseries and encourage the growth of private and voluntary sector options. (4.5.3) 

Theresa May supported this recommendation.

6.    We proposed universal home health visits by trained professionals, focusing on infancy. (1.2)

The Conservative Party has committed itself to universal health visiting, with a focus on early infancy.[iv]

7.    We proposed that government must recognise the importance of “informal childcare” by, for example, grandparents. (4.5.0)

Theresa May revealed that the Conservative Party are looking at this.[v]

8.    We proposed that there should be readily available services for families who might suddenly need relationship support – available through the Family Service Hub.

Mr Cameron recognised the need for quick access to relationship counselling and guidance.[vi]

9.    We proposed that PSHE curriculum should include the opportunity to discuss marriage family and relationship, and that sex education should be taught in the broader context of relationship education. (See 4.2.3)

Mr Cameron has insisted that there should be no sex education without relationship education.[vii]

10. We stressed the importance of helping couples even as they separate through mediation and conciliation services, to shift away from the adversarial and expensive legal route, taking the Australian Family Relationships Centres as a model. (See 4.6.4.)

Mr Cameron praised the FRC model and said that their feasibility in a British context was already being assessed.[viii]

11. We proposed the establishment of a Family Law Review. (See 4.7.0.)

The CSJ has established a Family Law Review.

ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY AND WORKLESSNESS

12. We proposed that the receipt of Jobseekers’ Allowance and related benefits must be closely linked to evidence that a person is seeking, or actively preparing for, work. (See 2.3.1, 2.4.2.)

At the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool, Mr Cameron said, "We will say to people; 'If you are offered a job and it is a fair job that you can do and you refuse it, you shouldn't get any welfare'." The Conservative Green Paper Work for Welfare (January 2008) proposes a reduction in benefits if a person fails to seek a job or accept a reasonable job offer.

13. We proposed that lone parents must engage in an appropriate level of work once their youngest child reaches age 5. (See 2.4.2 and ‘Family Breakdown’ 4.4.3.)

George Osborne has said: “We must be honest about the challenges facing lone parents - I want to work with all you to find the right mix of conditionality and support through childcare and more flexible working.”[ix]

14. We argued that the provision of welfare-to-work services should be contracted to private and third-sector organisations, with competitive tendering (3.4.2.4.)

The Green Paper proposes a “managed market” for such services, with the government contracting and monitoring, rather than providing the service.

15. We proposed that the job-seekers should be categorised according to how far away they are from work, and that the contracted job agencies should be paid with respect to the difficulty of each placement. (See 2.4.2, 3.4.2.5.)

The Green Paper proposes categorising jobseekers according to the difficulty associated with placing them in work, and linking this assessment to the amount paid to welfare to work providers. (Work for Welfare 5.2.)

16. Welfare to work support must be based on an accurate assessment of the needs of the individual claimant, and programmes must be personalised, localised and comprehensive. (See 3.4.1)

The Green Paper proposes that employment contractors will be expected to provide work-training, personalised career and recruitment advice, and mentoring.

17. We proposed that support must continue for at least 12 months after a client is in work to ensure sustainable employment. (See 3.4.1)

The Green Paper proposes that post-employment mentoring will be a “key part of the programme.”

18. We proposed that payments to employment contractors should be based on long-term outcomes for claimants (See 3.4.2.5.).

The Green Paper proposes that contractors should be paid “substantially or completely by the results they achieve. Chris Grayling has said, “We want to see a situation where the providers...are paid by results and they're paid over a period of time. So that they're still supporting you, six, twelve months after you're back in the work place, to make sure you don't run in to the kind of problems that many people can do when they come straight off benefits and back in to work.”[x]

EDUCATIONAL FAILURE

19. Breakthrough Britain focuses explicitly on educational outcomes for the most deprived children.

 The Conservative Green Paper on Education (2007) clearly reflects this focus.

20. We proposed Pioneer Schools which can be established by groups of parents and charities. These will be quicker and easier to establish than existing Academies.  They will be free from local authority control.  (See 4.1.5.)

The Green Paper’s ‘New Academies’ clearly reflects these ideas.

21. We proposed a compulsory ‘Home School Charters’ which cover rights and responsibility of all those involved in a child’s schooling (See 4.1.2)

The Green Paper proposes the expansion of ‘behaviour contracts’ between parents, schools and children.

22. We proposed that primary school children who fall behind in gaining literacy and numeracy skills should have booster support. (See 4.3.1.)

The Green Paper insists that every child who is capable of doing so should be reading by the age of six.

23. We elucidated the value of supplementary education programmes at 4.3.2.

The Green Paper argues for closer links to supplementary education programmes.

ADDICTION AND GAMBLING

24. Our Addictions report promoted structured day care abstinence programmes, as well as residential rehabilitation. (See 3.2.2-3.2.3)

Oliver Letwin and David Davis committed the Conservative Party to significantly expanding the provision of abstinence-based drug rehabilitation policy.

25. We recommended the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B.

The Conservative Party is committed to this.

26. We argued that increasing alcohol prices through taxation (along with other measures) can be an effective part of a strategy to reduce binge-drinking and excessive alcohol consumption.

The Conservative Party plan to increase tax on strong bear and cider, and treble it on alcopops. [xi]

SERIOUS PERSONAL DEBT

The Conservative Party has recommended several measures to tackle serious personal debt, some of which arose out of consultation with the Social Justice Policy Group:

27. We proposed incorporating financial educational into the curriculum (See 4.8).

The Conservative Party stated its “bold aspiration to teach financial literacy in schools to all children between the ages of 11 and 18.”[xii]

28. We proposed making it easier for banks and lenders to share information so that they know the scale of clients’ existing debt obligations (See 4.1).

The Shadow Chancellor supported this at the Conservative Party debt conference in 2006 after consulting the Social Justice Policy Group. [xiii]

29. To combat excessively high interest rates charged by doorstep lenders, we recommended that government put pressure on lenders to be more transparent about their products.

The Shadow Chancellor supported this at the Conservative Party debt conference in 2006 after consulting the Social Justice Policy Group. [xiv]

30. To this end we also recommended that home credit companies must share their data with each other, to encourage greater competition and lower prices for credit.

The Conservative Party accepted this recommendation.[xv]

31. We argued that IVAs must be marketed carefully.

The Shadow Chancellor supported this at the Conservative Party debt conference in 2006 after consulting the Social Justice Policy Group. [xvi]

THIRD SECTOR

In launching its third-sector manifesto, Voluntary action in the 21^st Century, the Conservative Party generously acknowledged the strong influence of Breakthrough Britain. In particular, 13 of the “top 20 policy pledges” appeared (fully or partially) in Breakthrough Britain.[xvii]

32. We recommended that an incoming government should reform Gift Aid to make it easier for charities to reclaim the tax to which they are entitled. (See 3.1.1.)

The manifesto pledges to “simply the Gift Aid system to reduce the bureaucratic burden on charities.”[xviii]

33. We recommended that government introduce clearer requirements for volunteering bodies in receipt of government funding to promote volunteering in key poverty-fighting areas and among socially excluded groups. (See 3.2.1.)

The manifesto pledges to prioritise work in “charity deserts” to establish volunteer-led organisations where none previously existed.[xix]

34. We want to see regular volunteering as the social norm – and proposed that the government should consider incentives for companies to develop volunteering schemes and second employees to charities.

The manifesto seeks to “establish regular volunteering as a social norm – leading by example through a volunteer hours scheme for central government employees.”

35. We stressed the need to reform Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checks to make it quicker for volunteers to start working. (See 3.2.2)

The manifesto pledges to “reduce the burden of regulation on volunteers” by “improving the system for CRB checks.”

36. We advocated that there should be greater reassurance for benefit claimants wishing to volunteer – as it is an effective way to re-engage the long term unemployed, and subsequently an important route back to work that should not be neglected for fear of losing benefits . (See 3.2.4)

The manifesto pledges to “act to clear-up any confusion surrounding the rules on volunteering and benefit claimants, so that misunderstandings do not dissuade potential volunteers.”

37. We proposed that the BIG Lottery fund should be protected from emergency raids by government (e.g. for the Olympics), and dedicated to the third sector (see 3.3.11); further, that the proportion of demand-led funding should increase to at least 50%; and that a grass-roots funding stream, modeled on the current Fair Share scheme, should be well-resourced.

The manifesto advocates replaced the BIG Lottery Fund with a Voluntary Action Lottery Fund dedicated in its entirety to the voluntary and community sector, with legislation protecting the fund from any other use, and with an emphasis on “lightly-specified, demand-led grant funding” so that the “’Fair Share’ approach will become the norm across the fund.”[xx]

38. We recognised that statutory funding is likely to continue to represent the largest single source of income for charities, and advocated the predominant use of lightly-prescribed grant funding. (See 3.3.)

The manifesto proposes “using contracts, rather than grants, only where there is a clear justification.”

39.  We proposed a formal ‘stamp’ for charities with verified strong outcomes, which would allow “’passporting through many regulatory procedures and checks.” (See 3.3.10).

The manifesto promises to “set up a funding passport scheme so that voluntary organisations can bypass repetitive grant application and contract tendering bureaucracy.”

40. We suggested that more standardised contracts should help to reduce excessive bureaucratic burdens. (See 3.3.5.)

The manifesto pledges to “draw up model grant and contract agreements to minimise the bureaucracy facing voluntary organisations in seeking funds.”

41. We stressed the need for multi-year agreements, prompt payment and full-cost recovery in government’s funding of charities.

The manifesto pledges “multi-year funding terms on contracts and grant agreements.”

42. We stressed throughout that grant and contract funding should specify outcomes rather than methods of delivery.

 The manifesto agrees that “Government funding, especially contracts, must be far less prescriptive, stating expected outcomes but respecting charities’ capability to determine how best to achieve these, rather than micro-managing the sector.”

43. We proposed that a Minister for the Third Sector should have permanent Cabinet ranking.(See 3.6.2.)

The manifesto promises to create a “powerful Office for Civil Society at the heart of government to fight for the interests of charities, social enterprises, co-operatives and community groups.”

44. We proposed that Parliament should create a new House of Commons Third Sector Select Committee. (See 3.6.2.)

The manifesto pledges a “new civil society select committee.”

45. We proposed that legislation should be introduced to prohibit commissioning authorities from discriminating for or against TSO’s on the basis of their religious character or affiliation or absence of such. This would help to create a level playing field with regards to Faith based organisations. (See 3.5.1 and 3.5.2)

The manifesto pledges that “A Conservative Government would sponsor the development of a new Compact code of practice on faith-based voluntary organisations.”

46. We proposed that the ‘Compact’ (an agreement of fair-dealing between local and central government and charities) should be strengthened and enforced. (See 3.3.1.)

The manifesto calls for the Compact to be improved and enforced.

47. We proposed that governmental spending reviews should look at how each department, and the Government as a whole, will give the third sector the maximum opportunity to deliver public services.(See 3.3.4)

The manifesto pledges to “introduce a system of social innovation audits to highlight solutions, not just problems: The identification of what the voluntary sector does better than the public sector will be made an integral part of the auditing of government performance; Working in conjunction with charity evaluation experts from the voluntary sector, we will ask the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission to investigate the most promising and replicable examples of innovative service provision by social enterprises.”

COULDN’T CARE LESS: A POLICY REPORT FROM THE CHILDREN IN CARE WORKING GROUP

Couldn’t Care Less has been highly praised by those who work with children in care. It was recognised in parliament as a landmark publication. Though it was only published when the Children and Young Persons Bill was already far advanced, nonetheless, many of its key recommendations found their way into the Bill as amendments after publication.

48. We recommended establishing Family Service Hubs with an enhanced role for health visitors

Tim Loughton expressed his support for enhancing the role of health visitors[xxi]

49. We recommended incentivising foster carers with housing improvement grants

This was pursued as part of a Conservative amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill.[xxii]

50.  We recommended making kinship care the preferred placement and paying kinship carers the same rates as foster carers

This was pursued as part of a Conservative amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill.[xxiii]

51. We recommended introducing a Fostering Charter between local authorities and carers

This was the subject of a Conservative amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill.[xxiv]

52. Creating a Mental Health Champion for children in care.

A Conservative amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill called for designated member of staff to be responsible for promoting the educational outcomes of children in care.

53. We recommended giving all local authorities responsibility for all children in care in custody (removing the Section 20 distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary arrangements).

Tim Loughton explicitly acknowledged in parliament the role of Couldn’t Care Less in forming this policy.[xxv]

54. Give local authorities full responsibility over the delivery of services to children in care in custody. Local Authorities should be given full funding and budgetary control over the delivery of services to children in care in custody (to counter any structural budgetary ‘benefit’ from those children going into the CJ system).

We recommend that economic analysis be commissioned into the rewarding of constructive behaviour in the community, including, but not limited to, a genuine effort to find work, by giving social housing tenants increasingly larger equity stakes in the home

Tim Loughton explicitly acknowledged in parliament the role of Couldn’t Care Less in forming this policy.[xxvi]

55. We proposed removing the statutory and practical limitations which prevent children in care from taking legal action to enforce the obligations of their corporate parents.

A Conservative amendment to the CaYP Bill called for guidance to be issued to clarify the specific legal entitlement of children in care and care leavers, and to clarify the duty of local authorities towards children.[xxvii]

56. We suggested the creation of more ‘family fostering’ schemes.

David Willetts used a keynote speech to give his backing to family fostering schemes.[xxviii]

HOUSING POVERTY

The Conservative Party Green Paper Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities adopted many of the recommendations of the earlier CSJ Housing Poverty report.[xxix]

57. Implement a localised revolution in housing supply, with decisions to allocate housing resources taken locally, not centrally. (1.1)

Allow the creation of entirely new bodies – Local Housing Trusts – with new freedom to develop homes for local people, as long as there is strong community backing

58. We must secure the quick release of public sector land for new housing development, in a speedier planning permission process. (1.2)

59. Expand upon vacant land scheme for GLA land proposed by Boris Johnson in London. (1.13)

Broaden access to the government's databases of surplus public sector land and buildings, to enable members of the public to identify vacant government land that should be available for house-building

60. Utilising empty homes is a priority.  Local authorities should use a mixture of economic incentives and legislative powers, such as Compulsory purchase orders, to bring empty homes back into use.  Reducing VAT on repairs and renovations will help remove the imbalance between new build houses and empty homes. (1.13)

Relax the rules that prevent thousands of habitable empty properties being used to house those on local authority waiting lists.

61. Strengthen shared ownership by reducing the risk on the buyer.    Explore further ways to secure private sector investment.  Propagate better information.  Avoid repossessions by including provisions for purchasers to reduce their equity stake in appropriate circumstances. (1.10)

Strengthen shared ownership options by encouraging flexible equity stakes, working to get greater private sector involvement in shared ownership, and ensuring that shared ownership buyers are not treated as sub-prime borrowers

62. We advocate a locally based finance system for housing, with genuine community engagement in the allocation of resources and appropriate controls at the national level to guarantee public finances.  (2.9) 

63. Work with local communities to find opportunities for new development (1.3)

Ensure that the views of local residents are genuinely taken into account at the start of the planning process, by making pre-application consultations between developers and local people mandatory for major applications.

64. A presumption against target setting: Government should not set national targets for the number of social homes to be built or for the proportion of these for social rent or low-cost home-ownership.  (2.1)

The Green Paper commits to abolishing the unsuccessful regional planning system and the counterproductive regional housing targets.

65. Localised housing supply reforms mean an end to the central imposition of eco-towns (2.1 )

Enable councils to revise their current local plans to protect Green Belt land and prevent the imposition of eco-towns against local wishes.

66. We recommend that economic analysis be commissioned into the rewarding of constructive behaviour in the community, including, but not limited to, a genuine effort to find work, by giving social housing tenants increasingly larger equity stakes in the home (2.3)

Offer good social tenants a 10% equity share in their social rented property, which can be cashed in when they leave the social rented sector.

67. Councils should be free to offer right-to-buy discounts of up to 30% and housing associations should be free to offer similar levels of discount for right-to-acquire and social HomeBuy purchases (2.2)

Ensure that tenants moving within the social sector keep their Right to Buy discounts.

68. Allocation reforms: any review must culminate in tenure reform and allow councils to sell and buy homes where needed, as they see fit. (2.2)

Instigate a formal review of waiting lists policy to make the system more fair and transparent.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

“A Force to be Reckoned With”: A Policy Report from the Police Reform Working Group

69. We proposed to restore police discretion over charging volume crime (See 10.4)

Give courts the power to use abstinence-based Drug Rehabilitation Orders to help offenders kick drugs.[xxx]

 “Order in the Courts”: A Policy Report from the Courts and Sentencing Working Group

70. We proposed secure residential drug treatment facilities, with a focus on abstinence, should be piloted, as an alternative to certain short prison sentences. (See 7.7.2)