Gurkhas, spin and border controls

Until last year only Gurkhas that served after 1997 were eligible to settle in the UK.  The Gurkha Justice Campaign supported by the Lib Dems (and eventually the Tories) worked hard to get this changed.  Eventually Gordon Brown's government bowed to pressure and agreed to extend UK settlement rights to the pre '97 Gurkhas.  Before they finally did the right thing, the Labour government repeatedly claimed that giving the pre '97 Gurkhas settlement rights could cost £1.4 billion per year.  This figure seemed rather high so, with the help of WhatDoTheyKnow.com I requested details of the calculation.  It took them a long time to provide it, but when they did it turned out to be an outrageously insulting claim.

The £1.4 billion was based on all 36,000 pre '97 Gurkha moving here with their entire family and not a single one ever working.  

The calculations do not take account of any tax or national insurance contributions that former Gurkhas may have made in the past or that they may make in the future. 

and

All settling families are on CTC maximum award. None of the dependants work and there is no WTC cost 

Because none of them were ever going to work this £33,000 per Gurkha includes

"Temporary accommodation cost estimated at £10,400 per year"

.  There was also an assumption 

"that there will be 12,161 children under the age of 18" in "8759 households with children under 18"

which seem quite specific for an assumption.  Presumably it is based on a percentage.


It also turns out that it was the maximum estimate for that eventuality - the range was £960 million - £1.2 billion

While this had to be taken into account somewhere, the way it was portrayed was that it was likely to cost that much, not that it was never really going to. While in full scaremongering mode (i.e. before being told off by Joanna Lumley), Phil Woolas said 

"Our estimate is £1.4 billion, and I remind the House that that would come from the defence budget"

To be fair, he did later admit that was the maximum cost. 


The following month Jacqui Smith finally admitted that the likely figure was far lower at £300 - 400 million.  Even then she did not make the assumptions clear.

That was just over a year ago now, and apart from the ill-advised smear attempt and some worrying (and disputed) warnings from the Army Benevolent Fund it's all been quiet.  I wondered how things had advanced and how accurate the 100,000+ influx of Gurkhas and family members prediction was.

Once again WhatDoTheyKnow facilitated that information request.  I was rather surprised by the response.

It turns out that the UK Border Agency don't actually know who comes into the country.  

"UKBA do not monitor when individuals choose to use their visas"

During the election we heard all about the fact no-one knows who has left the country thanks to the abandoned exit checks, but I don't remember anyone mentioning that who comes in is just as much of a mystery.  That hardly seems like the way to run an effective immigration policy whatever your feelings about the subject.  How does a government effectively plan service delivery without these figures?

They did have some information - between May 2009 and 31 March 2010 they have

"approved and issued approximately 5,000 applications were issued from ex-Gurkhas (who retired before 1997) and their dependants." 

The lowest estimate published in the scaremongering phase was 12,000 Gurkhas each bringing family members (which seem to be estimated at about 3 - 4 per Gurkha) giving around 40,000 predicted visas. So for the first year there were around eight times fewer applicants than the minimum government estimate.  Given the estimates of £264 - 400 million for 12,000 main applicants this gives £33 - 50 million as the approximate gross cost (using their assumptions).  Not quite the £1.4 billion suggested.  Obviously with those assumptions the numbers are pretty much meaningless.

Another way of looking at it is that of the 12,000 minimum estimate potentially only around 1,500 have applied.  I'm sure that it is a complete coincidence that this is the number that were in progress before the guidance changed.  


It would appear that the former government were caught out in an epic act of scaremongering.  Their minimum estimate of the number of pre '97 Gurkhas who would resettle seems to be far higher than the real situation, and the costs quoted were clearly many times higher than the reality.  To make matters worse there was a stupid and disgraceful attempt to claim Joanna Lumley and the Gurkha Justice Campaign had abandoned the Gurkhas once the rules had changed.


While of course I am delighted that the rules were changed, the way it was handled at the time was terrible.


Does any of this matter now?  After all the settlement rights were granted and Labour are no longer in government.  


I think it does because there are important lessons to be learned from this master class in how not to act.

1. Political parties need to know that such blatant spin will backfire and make them look dishonest (for the simple reason that they are being dishonest).
2. Governments should show some grace in defeat.
3. It is both a great example of what a campaign can achieve and a warning of the bile that can be directed against them if they are successful.
4. We should all to remember that government predictions are, at the end of the day, just guesses based on assumptions that are likely to be influenced by their view on a subject. Just like everyone else's.  They should always be taken with a good ton of salt, even (or especially) if they agree with your views. 

What next?


I have requested some clarification and some extra information.  As usual I will update once I receive the information.


From UKBA:

1. Confirmation of whether the number of visas issued does include those cases in progress in May 2009
2. For the figures to be broken down between former Gurkhas and dependants.
3. Whether any other agency would have better figures

From the Ministry of Defence:

1. Since Mr Woolas stated that any costs would come from the defence budget I have requested details of any impact on the defence budget associated with the pre '97 Gurkhas

I suspect the most important answer will be from the MoD, recklessly assuming they give one.

Plaid Cymru spin undermines their own argument on badger cull

In their desperate desire to spin today's judgement halting the badger cull Plaid Cymru actually manage to undermine their defence to the first ground of the appeal.

In court they claimed

1) That 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) of the 1981 Act meant simply a reduction that was 'more than merely minor or trivial'

Lord Justice Pill considered this to be a fair definition.  Neither Lady Justice Smith nor Lord Justice Stanley Burnton agreed.

In their insulting press release though they somewhat disingenuously use this to suggest substantial in the usual sense of the term, ie large, not just non-trivial

...Lord Justice Pill recognised that the government's plan for a cull pilot, did demonstrate the prospect of a substantial reduction of the incidence of TB in livestock.

Obviously they know what "substantial" means to most people regardless of their submission to the court. 

Will the Pembrokeshire badger cull stay halted?

In a welcome judgement from Lord Justice Pill, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Stanley Burnton the badger cull in Wales has been halted.

The appeal was brought on three grounds:

The judge erred in holding:

(1) That 'substantially reduce' in section 21(2)(b) of the 1981 Act meant simply a reduction that was 'more than merely minor or trivial'; and

(2) That, once it arose, the discretion to make an order under section 21(2) could lawfully be exercised without considering the balance between the extent of the benefit to be gained in terms of disease reduction and the extent of the killing of wild animals required to achieve it.

And that the Ministers erred in law in

(3) Making an Order for the whole of Wales having consulted on the basis of an IAPA and on the basis of evidence which at most supported culling in an IAPA.

All three Judges agreed on point (3) and the cull was halted, but the following paragraph was added due to the majority decision in the Badger Trust's favour on points (1) and (2)

72. I add this paragraph because a statement by the Minister on 5 July 2010 has been brought to the attention of the court. Whether further consultation would in any event be necessary I leave open but, on the view of the majority in this court, as it appears in the following judgments, it is not open to the Welsh Assembly Government immediately to make a fresh Order in the same terms but covering only the IAPA and to proceed forthwith with a badger cull there.

It would appear that limiting the order to the IAPA ("Intensive Action Pilot Area") would largely deal with the first ground too:

85. However, I do not think that this conclusion makes the Minister's position as difficult as might appear. If the Minister focuses on the effect of a cull within a specified area, she will be entitled to take the higher figure of reduction relevant to the area itself and to disregard the adverse effect on the area outside the cull area. That reduction would plainly be greater than 9% and might well be a reduction of substance. The adverse perturbation effect on the area outside the cull area would no doubt be a matter which the Minister would have to take into account when exercising her discretion (a matter to which I am about to come) but I do not think it needs to be brought into account when the threshold requirements are considered.

Which leaves only consideration of the benefit of a cull against the killing of the badgers.  Sadly even this doesn’t seem insurmountable – although the scientific evidence is clearly against them

111.The requirement of a balancing exercise is easily satisfied, and I would have expected the Minister to have served evidence leading the Court to conclude that she had indeed concluded that the benefits of a cull in the IAPA outweighed the harm involved in the cull of badgers. Had she done so, this ground would have failed.

Given that the future of Elin Jones the Rural Affairs Minister is now being question over her failures in this issue I suspect that she will have sorting this out quite high up her list of priorities. 

While the halt to the cull is great news (especially for the badgers of course) I won’t crack open the champagne just yet.  I suspect a determined minister could have it back on track fairly rapidly, especially with the Assembly elections coming up.  I hope I’m wrong though.

Update


 According to the report on Wales Online

The decision means that an estimated 2,000 badgers within the 111-square mile pilot area are safe – at least until October.

Any amended Order must be laid before the National Assembly for at least 21 days before it comes into force, and there is a 40-day period during which AMs may table a motion to annul it.

Given that the National Assembly is in recess from Friday this week until September 19 it will be months before the fresh order can be put in place.

I suspect that with the support the cull has within the Assembly they'll restart as soon as possible.  I still hope I'm wrong.

Are Public Services like the Millennium Bug?

During the Millennium Bug scare

...top British Airways executives plan to be aloft as the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 1999 -- a gesture to signal confidence that the airline's planes would not be falling out of the sky as a result of computer chaos

and, if I recall correctly, some countries forced their airline executives to do the same.

What if something similar was to apply to public services?  Could services be improved by making those people who make decisions that affect the services be forced about them use them?  Should ministers - and potentially decision makers in LEAs be banned from sending their children to private schools? Or ministers and NHS decision makers be banned from using private health care?

Appealing as the idea might be - after all, what better incentive to ensure that services are properly resourced than knowing that your children's education would be affected or that a family member could die in an underfunded and/or poorly managed hospital - I believe the answer has to be no.  It might concentrate their minds, but can it possibly be fair for the children to suffer for their parent's actions? 


Of course, as an eternal optimist(ish) I like to thing that people make these decisions because they truly believe that they are the best way to improve things.  If that is in fact the case then holding their family to ransom wouldn't make the slightest difference anyway.


Nice idea though.

Badger Vaccine Deployment Project cut to allow ineffective culling

While doing a bit more research on the badger culling promised by the Agriculture Minister despite the evidence from the latest studies showing it to be ineffective: 

"Our findings show that the reductions in cattle TB incidence achieved by repeated badger culling were not sustained in the long term after culling ended and did not offset the financial costs of culling. These results, combined with evaluation of alternative culling methods, suggest that badger culling is unlikely to contribute effectively to the control of cattle TB in Britain." 

I happened upon this press release from Defra

Changes to badger vaccine deployment project 

Ministers have reviewed the planned Badger Vaccine Deployment Project (BVDP), designed to vaccinate badgers against bovine TB in parts of England, due to start this summer.

The BVDP was designed at a time when culling was not an option. Since the policy on badger control is still being developed, ministers have decided that vaccination will proceed as part of the project in the area near Stroud, Gloucestershire, only, beginning in July for five years. Badger sett surveys will also be completed in the area near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. 

This reflects both the changed policy position and the need to consider carefully all public expenditure. 

Trapping and vaccination is not now planned as part of the BVDP in the areas in Staffordshire, Herefordshire/Worcestershire and Devon where the project was due to take place. 

Agriculture Minister Jim Paice said: 

“We’ve committed to carefully-managed and science-led badger control as part of a package of measures, and we’re looking carefully at badger vaccination and culling as part of that. 

It makes sense to review the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project to keep our options open and to ensure best possible use of taxpayers’ money. 

By going ahead with the training in Stroud, we’ll maintain capacity to train lay vaccinators while we consider how best to deploy vaccines as part of a badger control policy.” 

The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) will trap and vaccinate badgers using the recently-licensed injectable badger BCG vaccine on up to 100 km2 of cattle land near Stroud and will offer training to lay vaccinators to help build capacity. 

The Government is committed to introducing a carefully-managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high and persistent levels of bovine TB, as part of a package of measures. 

Notes 

The aim of the BVDP is to build confidence in the principle and practicalities of vaccination, develop practical know-how for vaccinating badgers and provide an opportunity to learn how best to address practical difficulties. 

The project was originally intended to cover six areas: NW of Stafford, E of Tenbury Wells; NE of Cheltenham; NW of Stroud; W of Tiverton; SE of Tiverton. 

The Veterinary Medicines Directorate issued an authorisation for Badger BCG vaccine on 24 March 2010. This is the first tuberculosis vaccine authorised for use in badgers in the UK.

It's an unusual definition of "science-led" that means "pretty much ignore the science".  Actually that's not at all unusual for a UK government.  I just hoped it would change.

Costs of bovine tuberculosis vaccination

Robstick has happened upon some interesting information on the vaccination projects


The government is committed to spending £6.6m on bovine tuberculosis vaccination research and £614,000 on the Badger Vaccine Deployment Project this year.  As the cost of the cull is £2,830 per badger, that £614K is the equivalent of culling just 219 badgers.


Next year it decreases to £418,000, equivalent to around 147 culled badgers.


Hopefully the vaccination will work well enough to divert funds from culling into vaccination projects.

Just how representative should parliament be?

I’ve been thinking about the whole 50% of the shadow cabinet must be women quota thing.  I am against quotas/all [trait] lists etc. Lazy people tend to blame this on the fact that I am a white man. 

There is obviously no way I could match the marvellous (and probably magical) Charlotte Gore's take ("Positively discriminate this"), and it would be pointless and embarrassing to try.  Edit: In an amazing coincidence Robstick has posted on the same topic this morning ("A Question of Equality")

So instead I thought I'd ask “What would make parliament a truly accurate reflection of the population?”

It’s true that parliament has a wildly different ratio to the UK as a whole:

Party	Sex	Percentage of population	Theoretical number of MPs	Actual Number of MPs	Actual % of MPs	Difference	Absolute % Difference
Total Parliament	Male	49.50%	322	509	78.3%	187	29%
	Female	50.50%	328	141	21.7%	-187	-29%
	Total			650
Conservative	Male	49.50%	151	265	86.6%	114	37%
	Female	50.50%	155	41	13.4%	-114	-37%
	Total			306
Labour	Male	49.50%	128	177	68.6%	49	19%
	Female	50.50%	130	81	31.4%	-49	-19%
	Total			258
Liberal Democrats	Male	49.50%	28	50	87.7%	22	38%
	Female	50.50%	29	7	12.3%	-22	-38%
	Total			57

But is the solution forcing the issue? Interestingly 47% of Welsh Assembly Members are women (at the last election), so it’s much closer here.  As far as I know Plaid are the only ones with a policy of positive discrimination which has lead to some controversy (see last link).

Party	Sex	Percentage of population	Theoretical number of AMs	Actual Number of AMs	Actual % of AMs	Difference	% Difference
Total	Male	49.50%	30	32	53.3%	2	4%
	Female	50.50%	30	28	46.7%	-2	-4%
	Total		60	60
Conservative	Male	49.50%	6	11	91.7%	5	42%
	Female	50.50%	6	1	8.3%	-5	-42%
	Total		12	12
Labour	Male	49.50%	13	10	38.5%	-3	-11%
	Female	50.50%	13	16	61.5%	3	11%
	Total		26	26
Liberal Democrats	Male	49.50%	3	3	50.0%	0	1%
	Female	50.50%	3	3	50.0%	0	-1%
	Total		6	6
Plaid Cymru	Male	49.50%	7	8	53.3%	1	4%
	Female	50.50%	8	7	46.7%	-1	-4%
	Total		15	15

Ethnicity

Parliament is actually much closer to an accurate reflection of ethnicity than of sex, but only because the numbers are so small:

Party	Ethnicity	% of population	Theoretical number of MPs	Actual Number of MPs	Actual % of MPs	Difference	Absolute % Difference
Total	White	92%	599	623	96%	24	4%
	BME	8%	51	27	4%	-24	-4%
	Total		650	650
Conservative	White	92%	282	295	96%	13	4%
	BME	8%	24	11	4%	-13	-4%
	Total		306	306
Labour	White	92%	238	242	94%	4	2%
	BME	8%	20	16	6%	-4	-2%
	Total		258	258
Liberal Democrats	White	92%	52	57	100.0%	5	8%
	BME	8%	5	0	0.0%	-5	-8%
	Total		57	57

But again I am not sure that forcing the issue is the answer. Not only that, but there are large variations in the demographics across the country from 29% of the population on London to 2% of the North East and South West (both in 2001).  Should a quota apply across the country or just in areas such as London? The North East has 29 seats and the South West has 55. For an accurate reflection the South West should have one BME MP and the North East none.  London’s 73 seats should have 21 of the theoretical 51 BME MPs.

Don’t get me wrong, I would be delighted with a representative parliament – different perspectives would improve it no end.  I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the many people working to increase the diversity of the various parties.  There are many barriers to getting involved and standing for election and for many groups these are, or appear to be, insurmountable.  Anything that breaks down these barriers is likely to be a good thing for parliament and democracy.  My difficulty is that if you go down the quota route, where do you stop?

Religion

It’s remarkably difficult to find details of MPs’ religion – particularly given the monitoring forms that everyone else has to fill in.  Should religion be a factor?  Mehdi Hasan appears to think it is important.  Should we try to ensure that there are 101 MPs with no religion, 465 Christian etc?  If so, which of the 24 Jewish MPs should be kicked out since (if you want to go down the quota route) they are clearly over-represented?

Religion	Percentage of population	Theoretical Number of MPs	Actual Number of MPs	Difference
Christian	72%	465
No religion	16%	101
Muslim	2.7%	18	8	-10
Hindu	1%	7
Sikh	0.6%	4
Jewish	0.5%	3	24	+21
Buddhist	0.3%	2
Other Religion	0.3%	2
Not Answered	7.3%	48

Disability

How about disabilities?  If gender, ethnicity and religion are important enough to warrant quotas (and arguments have been advanced elsewhere for all of them) surely disability is too?  

Disability	Percentage of population	Theoretical Number of MPs
All Disabled	18	115
Mobility	10	68
lifting, carrying	10	64
manual dexterity	4	29
continence	2	16
communication	3	21
memory/concentration/ learning	4	23
recognising when in danger	1	7
physical co-ordination	4	26
other	6	37

Sexuality

8.4% of men (=27 MPs) and 9.7% of women (=32 MPs) have had a same sex encounter.  2.6% have had a same sex partner in the last 5 years.  Accurate figures for homosexuality are hard to come by, but the general one used seems to be 3%. This would give 20 MPs.

Other

And then what about other traits?  97 MPs should be binge drinkers, 26 should be alcohol dependent, 150 should have mental health issues, should have used illicit drugs within the last month (and 455 should support the legalisation of cannabis) and 3 should be paedophiles. While obviously all unrelated, each of these would give a different outlook and set of experiences.  Should we ignore that or legislate for all of them?

Of course, the other problem with these quotas is, as mentioned above in the section on ethnicity, there is wide variation across the country.  As such any quota would presumably have to be on the basis of proportional representation.  If we’re having that...

Party	Percentage of vote	Theoretical Number of MPs	Actual Number of MPs	Difference
Conservative	36.1	235	306	+71
Labour	29	189	258	+69
Lib Dem	23	150	57	-93

I doubt the delightful Ms Harman will be advocating giving the Lib Dems an extra 93 MPs though.