Monthly Archives: May 2017

Britain, Government, Politics, Society

The UK Government needs a clearer policy on migration

IMMIGRATION

Theresa May follows her predecessor by setting a specifically vague target on net migration levels. But how will the targets on immigration be met?

As Theresa May seeks a mandate from the electorate on June 8 to proceed with Brexit negotiations under her own terms, there are certain and specific issues that should be central to her case. Immigration policy is clearly one of them.

But in keeping and in line with much of the Prime Minister’s campaigning so far, the political debate on such issues fall short on substance. Certainly, it’s apt to ask whether Conservatives can agree on what the detail of their immigration policy should be. Yet, when pressed on the matter, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, could only say that the party’s manifesto “will not be identical” to the last two election campaigns. Hardly enlightening given that one of the central tenets prior to the Brexit vote was people’s concerns over migration. Mrs May insists there will be no back-tracking, and the target will be to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands”, a policy enshrined previously by David Cameron. If that’s suitably vague to speak in such terms, we must question whether it is credible? In 2016, net migration stood at 273,000, and it is some 20 years since that figure was below 100,000. What interpretation are we to apply when the Prime Minister repeats the mantra of old by insisting that net migration be reduced to the “tens of thousands”? An issue of confidence might yet arise.

In all of this, however, we should be careful of assuming that the EU is to blame for the UK’s high net migration. That would be a mistake. Migration from the EU accounts for less than half of the total figure, at 44 per cent. The other 56 per cent, from the rest of the world, is already within the control of the British government.

A difficult dilemma arises. The suggestion being made is that immigrants who shore up our workforce will be permitted entry if they are important to the economy, such as filling the skills-gap in industries such as health and IT. But those who come here to work account for half of the annual influx. Reducing the immigration figure by enough to get anywhere near the target (whether notional or not) will be tough if an exception is to be made for the majority of migrants.

The government could halt the flow of students into the UK, but by doing so could harm our universities and cut off a supply of skilled workers who could help to drive economic growth if they stay on. Or, the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants could also be tackled. The most recent figures, however, show that just over 12,000 people were granted asylum over a 12-month period. Even if all of them were to be removed at a stroke that would make minimal difference to the headline figures.

When published, the Conservative manifesto could yet contain a coherent strategy on immigration. But, on the evidence of recent years, when net migration targets have been repeatedly missed, we are entitled to doubt whatever the document says will be done or if the targets will ever be achieved.

Standard
European Union, France, Government, Politics, Society

Emmanuel Macron’s task is to restore confidence in the Fifth Republic

FRANCE

Macron

Emmanuel Macron wins the election to become French president.

The revelation of a last-minute attempt by computer hackers to influence the outcome of the French presidential election is another sane reminder of the forces at work in undermining democracy. In the end, however, it had little effect, as Emmanuel Macron secured his expected victory, at 39, to become the youngest French head of state of modern times. This is an extraordinary achievement for the President-Elect for he has been a candidate without a party.

Some will likely argue that the margin of triumph over Marine Le Pen was emphatic enough. Others might suggest that with around one third of voters still prepared to vote for the Front National (FN), this too was none the less a good result for a right-wing populist, anti-EU party.

The results suggest that if Mr Macron disappoints during his five-year tenure in office – as François Hollande so evidently did before him – then Ms Le Pen will be well positioned in 2022 to take power.

Given that this was an election in which neither candidate represented one of the mainstream Left- or Right- wing parties, Mr Macron has assumed an enormous level of responsibility on his shoulders.

The French electorate have clearly become weary of political leaders who promise much but deliver little. One prominent sign of their dissatisfaction with the political system as a whole was the lower than usual voter turnout, with participation possibly lower than at any time for 40 years when final figures are collated.

Whilst there is a sense that the French voter may have been left to feel short-changed, their rejection of the traditional parties has not exactly enamoured them of the populist fringe movement represented by Ms Le Pen. Or, indeed, of the alleged centrist appeal of Mr Macron, given his connections to former president Hollande.

Primarily, it is incumbent on Mr Macron to restore his country’s faith in the Fifth Republic over the next five years. This task will be made more difficult by the fact that his movement, En Marche!, has no parliamentary representation, something that will have to be swiftly rectified when elections take place to the assembly next month.

With little in the way of an activist base, Mr Macron faces a political paradox – one in which he may end up with the trappings of political office but none of the power that derives from a strong presence in the legislature. Moreover, and more worrying still, is that information in the hacked data might yet mire him in political scandal.

The contents of the hacked data were not disclosed because of the strict rules operating in France during the latter stages of the election campaign. But the new French president-elect must be hoping that there is nothing embarrassing, or worse, to be revealed.

Yet, the lesson of Ms Le Pen’s showing in the polls needs to be readily acknowledged by Europe’s elites, who have openly welcomed Mr Macron as a saviour. But they need to understand that this does not represent the definitive victory of the European project over its detractors. Far from it. It is a desperate throw of the dice for the EU to have relevance and meaning.

Standard
Government, Health, Politics, Society

Theresa May pledges an overhaul of the Mental Health Act

BRITAIN

MHA 1983

The prime minister, Theresa May, has announced that the Mental Health Act 1983 will be overhauled if the Conservative Party win the General Election on 8 June.

Prime Minister Theresa May has promised the biggest shake-up of mental health provision for 30 years if re-elected to tackle the “burning injustice” of current treatment.

In a major policy announcement before the General Election next month, the Conservative leader has pledged to scrap the “flawed” 1983 Mental Health Act after concluding it is “unfit for purpose”.

A string of policies designed to end discrimination in mental health treatment and make provision suitable for the 21st century will be implemented instead.

Ten thousand more NHS staff will be assigned to mental health work in the next three years to boost treatment under the Tory plans.

A teacher in every primary and secondary school will be trained in mental health first aid to identify signs that children are developing anxiety or depression.

Discrimination laws will be toughened up to protect employees with mental health issues while Samaritans charity helpline will be Government funded until 2022.

The pledges will form part of the Conservative manifesto and come after the Prime Minister named improving mental health as a key priority when she took office.

Mrs May said: “On my first day in Downing Street last July, I described shortfalls in mental health services as one of the burning injustices in our country.

“It is abundantly clear to me that the discriminatory use of a law passed more than three decades ago is a key part of the reason for this.

“So today I am pledging to rip up the 1983 Act and introduce in its place a new law which finally confronts the discrimination and unnecessary detention that takes place too often.”

The Act was written at a time when mental health issues did not have the same level of understanding or prominence in public debate as today.

The legislation has been criticised by campaigners after the number of detentions under the Act increased by 43 per cent in the last decade.

There are also concerns the law is fuelling discrimination. In 2014-15, close to 60 per cent of black people in hospital with mental illness were detained – compared to around 40 per cent for white people.

In a recent report the Care Quality Commission, the independent regulator of healthcare services, strongly criticised the legislation.

It said the Act “may disempower patients, prevent people from exercising legal rights, and ultimately impede recovery or even amount to unlawful and unethical practice”.

Part of the problem, according to Tory sources, is that mental health case law built up over the years is all based on the old legislation.

Therefore, Mrs May will repeal the Act and bring forward a Mental Health Treatment Bill in its place.

Schools and hospitals will also see changes under the Tory plans. Ten thousand extra workers will be put on mental health provision in the NHS.

It remains unclear whether all the places will be new hires or current workers already employed by the NHS.

Sources insist no new funding is needed for the scheme because money has been carved out of the current Health Department budget.

However, campaigners are likely to criticise the failure to promise billions of extra spending on mental health that they have demanded.

The Tories’ wider plan for NHS spending will be published in the manifesto later this month.

The additional mental health training is to be provided by a charity within the Third Sector and will cost the Government £2 million.

The courses, described as “comprehensive” by Tory sources, will equip teachers to spot developing mental health issues in children and tackle psychotic episodes.

Standard