Dr Tony Cox Scottish welfare activist was today sentenced to 150 hours community service at Dundee Sheriff Court after being convicted of threatening behaviour towards employees of MAXIMUS Inc who carry out DWP Work Capability Assessments on disabled people on behalf of the British Government.

According to the Scottish Herald: Cox, who volunteers for the Scottish Unemployed Workers Network, plans to appeal against his conviction and community payback sentence handed down at Dundee Sheriff Court yesterday.

He said he was extremely disappointed with the verdict and called the ruling a “political attack”.

Cox, of Dundee, added: “I am furious with the verdict, being made to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work within six months is a clear attack on my ability to carry out my work helping people through the Scottish Unemployed Workers Network.”

Trouble began when Cox attended the Maximus Assessment Centre at Caledonian House in Dundee on November 15 last year, and Maximus refused to allow him to accompany a vulnerable woman to her assessment and called the police.

Cox was arrested and held overnight in police cells. The court heard that he argued with Maximus employees that the claimant had the right to be accompanied.

Dr Cox will be appealing against conviction and sentence.

ABC Comment: The irony of this case is that Dr Tony Cox spends all of his time serving the communitity and it was serving the community that brought Dr Cox into a disagreement with employees of MAXIMUS Inc. Dr Cox has feature in Q&A's with us and we wish Dr Cox all the best with his appeal.  

You think we have problems in Europe.

With unemployment at more than 90%, many Zimbabweans have become vendors and rely on cross-border trading to make a living. Officials in the country have tried to stop the trend by passing laws preventing organisations from laying off workers and forcing them to give workers severance pay, but economists warn the number of jobless will continue going up as the economy worsens.

The cash-strapped government has again been forced to defer payment of the July salaries to the rest of its employees, including teachers, pensioners and grant-aided workers, to next month.

Civil servants last month staged a one-day work stoppage following a salary delay.

The government warned punitive measures would be taken on those who decide to take such actions in future.

“Government will not apply the ‘no-work no-pay principle’, but I would like to warn you that in future such actions will not be tolerated and government will not hesitate to apply the laws. Cabinet has already approved this position,” she said.

Zimbabwe is a landlocked country in southern Africa known for its dramatic landscape and diverse wildlife, much of it within parks, reserves and safari areas. On the Zambezi River, Victoria Falls make a thundering 108m drop into narrow Batoka Gorge, where there’s white-water rafting and bungee-jumping. Downstream are Matusadona and Mana Pools national parks, home to hippos, rhinos and birdlife.

Climate change means drought in Africa. Lifes hard. 

Owen Smith has some interesting ideas about Zero Hour Contracts, please see the video below. 

As of December 2014, the Office for National Statistics estimated that there were around 700,000 workers on zero-hours contracts, with 1.8m such contracts (as some people may have more than one contract) with a further 1.3m where no hours were worked.

Under UK law a distinction is drawn between a mere "worker" and an "employee," an employee having more legal rights than a worker.  Whether a person working under a zero-hour contract is an employee or a worker can be uncertain; however, even in cases where the plain text of the zero-hour contract designates the person as a "worker" courts have inferred an employment relationship based on the mutuality of obligation between employer and employee.

Thus, when deciding whether a zero-hours contract constitutes a contract of employment, conferring employee status, the wording of the contract will not be determinative of whether there is, in practice, a mutuality of obligation. The tribunal will look closely at the reality of the agreement. If the reality is that there is a pattern of regular work which is regularly accepted, the tribunal may deem the contract to be one of employment. 

Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published their response to a House of Lords Select Committee report on the Equality Act 2010 and its effect on the lives of disabled people by calling for a new national focus on disability rights so that disabled people are no longer treated as “second class citizens”.

It is vital that all the remaining provisions in the Equality Act 2010 are implemented – breaking down the barriers to disabled people accessing public events and leisure facilities is not only hugely beneficial for individuals, it has many benefits for businesses too.“Disabled people have been badly let down by the Tories – they have arbitrarily slashed £30 a week from those who are unable to work through ill-health or disability and the UK Government should be ashamed that the UN has launched an investigation into UK violations of the UN Convention on Disability Rights.

Plaid Cymru Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance and Economy Adam Price has called out a Labour leadership candidate’s “appalling hypocrisy” over claims that he would outlaw zero hour contracts.

Adam Price said that Labour has consistently claimed to be against zero hour contracts in public but had failed to take action to support them when it came to taking action. He said that on five different occasions, Plaid Cymru has tried to outlaw the use of zero hour contracts in various sectors in Wales, and on every occasion Labour in Wales has failed to support Plaid Cymru’s amendments.

Speaking in a press conference today, Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith said:

“[Zero hour contracts] are exploitative in their very essence. A hallmark of all that has gone wrong with job security in this country.

“And let me be clear, I will outlaw them, not just exploitative zero hour contracts, I will get rid of them.

“We need minimum hours contracts.

“We need a guarantee and certainty about how many hours you’ve got and what you can expect to earn from those hours.

“That’s the Labour way!”

Plaid Cymru Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance and Economy Adam Price said:

“This statement smacks of appalling hypocrisy from Owen Smith and the Labour party.

“Plaid Cymru has long campaigned to ban the use of exploitative zero hour contracts. They are unpredictable, give workers very no job protection and guarantee of income, and often have unfair terms and conditions.

“That’s why Plaid Cymru has tried to ban zero hour contacts in various sectors on five different occasions in the Assembly, and on every occasion Labour has voted against Plaid Cymru’s proposals.

“Wales is the only place where Labour is in government – the only place where the party has the power to ban zero hour contracts – and yet Labour has consistently refused to act.

“It seems that saying one thing in press conferences and doing something completely different in the Assembly is really the Labour way.”

Data from the British Bankers’ Association shows that house purchase approvals in June were 11 percent lower than the same month of 2015. Gross mortgage borrowing in the first half of 2016 was £79.9 billion compared with £63.6 billion for the same period of 2015. Borrowing by businesses in the non-financial sector decreased in June by £526 million and business raised £1.9 billion less from capital markets — the first drop in lending in 2016. Rebecca Harding, BBA chief economist, said the data reflects the uncertainty that was felt ahead of the EU referendum but that the results ‘are not a verdict on the health of the economy post-Brexit.’” We’ll see if she’s right soon enough.

The Erasmus scheme that has helped so many young people gain work and educational experience may be under threat once rge UK leaves the Europeann Union.

According to the Erasmus websisit:

It is not clear at this early stage what the impact of the recent UK vote to leave the EU will have on the Erasmus Programme. We appreciate your concern for the programme but unfortunately you may have to be patient as definitive answers on the programmes future, particularly in relation to UK Students and Universities, may take time.

Fuel direct is the common name for third party deductions from benefits for fuel debt. In 1996, there were 141,000 gas customers and 47,000 electricity customers on fuel direct. In 2006 this had fallen to 27,200 gas customers and 21,589 electricity customers.

This is what Citizens Advice has to say about the scheme. 

Fuel direct can be a very useful budgeting tool for some clients – contributing to arrears and ongoing fuel usage at a sustainable level. An East of Scotland CAB reports of a female client on income support who sought help with arrears of electricity. She has made regular payments of £50 per month and has arrears of £397. The bureau contacted the power company but they refused to negotiate a payment plan and insisted on £150pm. Adviser then spoke to the Third Party Deduction Team to arrange fuel direct payments. It was agreed client will pay £12.50 per week towards arrears until they are repaid. The client is satisfied with this arrangement.

There remain problems with the scheme however, not least the dramatic fall in usage. Bureau also report difficulties in getting clients onto fuel direct. Sometimes, as in the above case, this is due to reluctance on the part of the power company. The DWP, however, also appears reluctant to let clients make use of fuel direct. An East of Scotland CAB reports of a female client on income support who is in arrears for electricity of around £400. The supplier is only prepared to fit a prepayment meter if they can set it to collect £9 per week for arrears plus current usage.

On contacting the DWP to ask for payments by fuel direct, the CAB were told verbally that they will only consider this after client has tried payment by quantum meter. A West of Scotland CAB reports of a female client on Income support who was very distressed to find she had electricity arrears of £628 due to estimated readings. The bureau contacted the DWP to arrange fuel direct payments and were informed that this was not automatic if the client wasn’t in result of severe disability premium or had no children. They said they should have a pre-payment meter installed to repay arrears. The client doesn’t want this as this meter means extra cost to the client. Another problem is that fuel direct is not available for clients in incapacity benefit. This can cause difficulties, particularly for clients who move from income support to Incapacity benefit.

A West of Scotland CAB reports of a female client on incapacity benefit, who was in financial difficulties and received a letter from her electricity supplier threatening disconnection. She had previously been on income support and her electricity was paid by fuel direct. She was unaware this was no longer the case and had built up arrears of 1 Figures from Ofgem

The supplier stated that as she was not eligible for fuel direct the minimum repayment they would accept was £15 per week, which the client was struggling to pay. A West of Scotland CAB reports of a male client in receipt of the mobility component of disability living allowance. He had also been in receipt of income support since 1997, when he had to stop work after a severe accident left him with multiple injuries. He has now received a letter from DWP stating that he has been entitled to Incapacity benefit since 1997 of over £29,000. However, as he had been paid Income support of over £28,000 he was sent the difference of about £450 (his incapacity benefit is currently £4.35 a week more than his income support). This has caused a number of problems for him. His housing benefit and council tax benefit are now stopped. He has to make a fresh claim for these benefits and may be asked to repay any overpayment going back to 1997. He had been making direct payments from his income support for council tax arrears and was also on fuel direct. This is no longer available because he is on incapacity benefit. He has also lost his right to automatic free prescriptions. Other problems reported by bureau include the DWP stopping fuel direct without notifying the client and also refusing to continue fuel direct after switching supplier.

A West of Scotland CAB reports of a male on jobseeker’s allowance who has paid his electricity by fuel direct for many years. The DWP stopped making payments when he finished a training scheme in May, although the client remained on benefit. He was not informed of this and as a result has incurred arrears of £172.48. The supplier has obtained a warrant for disconnection unless the client has a prepayment meter installed. The CAB contacted both DWP and the supplier to request a return to fuel direct. The DWP say they are willing, but cannot go ahead without the supplier’s approval. The supplier is refusing, saying they will only accept a prepayment meter or disconnection.

The first £5 card each week will deduct £4.10 for arrears and costs, which the bureau feels is likely to cause the client further hardship. A West of Scotland CAB reports of a female client on Income support who pays their gas and electricity by fuel direct. She recently changed her gas supplier to the same company that supply her electricity.

She had received account for £14.75 for her gas supply and wondered if it could be included in her fuel direct. The bureau phoned the DWP who stated she could only go onto fuel direct for her gas if she was in arrears of more than £53. Fuel direct remains a useful budgeting tool for people on the lowest incomes. Its usefulness is limited, however, by the difficulties in getting people onto the scheme. This difficulty is compounded by the complexity of the rules surrounding different benefits as well as variations in the way these are interpreted. This results in unnecessary additional hardship for an already vulnerable group of people.

Work and Pensions Committee & Business, Innovation and Skill Committee

MPs catalogue litany of failures culminating in 'at any cost' disposal of company and pension deficit to wholly unsuitable "chancer". In their report on BHS, the Work and Pensions and Business, Innovations and Skills Committees conclude that Sir Philip chose to rush through the offloading of a beleaguered high street institution, losing money and encumbered with a massive pension fund deficit, to a buyer who he was clearly aware was "manifestly unsuitable", with Sir Philip forced to finance the sale himself.

• Read the report introduction
• Read the report conclusions
• Read the full report: BHS

Though the ownership of Dominic Chappell and his associates was "incompetent and self-serving", the ultimate fate of the company was sealed on the day it was sold. Advisers were paraded by both sides as an "expensive badge of legitimacy for people who would otherwise be bereft of credibility" while the Taveta group directors failed to provide a semblance of independent oversight or challenge in a corporate group run as a personal fiefdom by a single dominant individual.

MPs heard hours of oral testimony and considered thousands of pages of written evidence in the inquiry, which began when BHS crashed into administration just 13 months after the ill-advised and under-funded sale to Dominic Chappell. The Committees say the evidence at times resembled a "circular firing squad", with a series of key witnesses appearing to believe they could absolve themselves of responsibility by blaming others. Sir Philip Green himself "adopted a scattergun approach", liberally firing blame to all angles except his own.

The unacceptable face of capitalism

The report documents the systematic plunder of BHS at the cost of the 11,000 jobs and 20,000 people's pensions now at risk. Sir Philip Green, Dominic Chappell and the respective directors, advisers and hangers-on who all got rich or richer are all culpable, with the only losers the ordinary employees and pensioners.

The Committees say this is "the unacceptable face of capitalism" and that the story of BHS begs much wider questions about the gaps in company law and pension regulation that must be addressed. The two Committees will now turn to those question in new inquiries.

• The headline figures that Sir Philip bought BHS for £200 million and sold it 14 years later for £1 cannot disguise the true picture. He did not invest in the company and then unfortunately fail to make it succeed. Sir Philip systematically extracted hundreds of millions of pounds from BHS, paying very little tax and fantastically enriching himself and his family, leaving the company and its pension fund weakened to the point of the inevitable collapse of both. Lady Tina Green is still being paid tens of millions of pounds of tax free repayments on the loan that was engineered to sell BHS from one Green family business to another, and will be for some years to come.

A moral duty to act on the pension schemes

• When Sir Philip Green bought BHS the pension schemes were in surplus. As these schemes declined into substantial and unsustainable deficit he and his directors repeatedly resisted requests from trustees for higher contributions. Such contributions were not charitable donations: they were the means of the employer meeting its obligations for deferred pay. Sir Philip had a responsibility to be aware of the growth of the deficit and he was aware of it. That there is a massive deficit is ultimately his responsibility.
• The Committees say Sir Philip Green must act now to find a resolution for the BHS pensioners, a "moral duty" which will undoubtedly require him to make a large financial contribution. Sir Philip’s failure until now to resolve the pension fund’s problems contributed substantially to the demise of BHS, along with chronic under-investment and the systematic extraction of hundreds of millions of pounds from the increasingly ailing company.
• The Arcadia board cited a variety of explanations for pausing Project Thor, ranging from Christmas to the Scottish independence referendum and instability in Ukraine. In fact, the primary reason was Sir Philip Green's resistance to TPR's moral hazard requests. He did not wish to respond to requests for information regarding historic dividends, management charges, sale and leaseback arrangements, inter-company loans and the use of BHS shares or assets as collateral for company purchases. At best this demonstrated a lack of willingness to act to secure the pension fund's future.

Incredible wealth followed by retail demise

• In his early years of ownership, Sir Philip cut costs, sold assets and paid substantial dividends offshore to the ultimate benefit of his wife.  The so-called 'King of the High Street' failed to invest sufficiently in stores or reinvent the business to beat the prevailing high street competition. The Committees found "little to support the reputation for retail business acumen for which he received his knighthood" and say "we don’t doubt that Sir Philip had some affection for BHS – to an extent it created him. Now it could also bring him down"
• Sir Philip Green's family accrued incredible wealth during the early, profitable years of BHS ownership. Over the duration of their tenure, significantly more money left the company than was invested in it. There is no evidence of improved turnover, market share, or major increase in investment that might be expected from a leading retailer. BHS was involved in a number of transactions with a complex web of companies, many registered offshore: whether BHS benefited financially from these transactions is far from clear. What is clear is that the Green family did.
• The report documents the ways Sir Philip was able to boost BHS's profitability in the short-term while ultimately fatally undermining its ability to survive. The early years improvement in BHS's profitability appears to have been achieved primarily through cost-cutting measures and squeezing suppliers. Crucially, BHS's turnover remained flat through much of Sir Philip’s tenure and declined in the latter years. Sir Philip initially cut costs but he did not grow the business.
• One mechanism of (tax-lite) cash extraction to other Green family companies was through the sale of property: in 2001, BHS Group sold ten BHS stores for £106 million to Carmen Properties Ltd - a Jersey-registered company owned ultimately owned by Lady Green - as part of a sale-and-leaseback arrangement. BHS Ltd then paid rent to Carmen for the use of these properties. They were ultimately sold back to BHS as part of the sale to RAL for only £70m (with the proceeds of the sale going to Lady Green as the sole beneficial owner) but, over the lifetime of the sale-and-leaseback arrangement, rent of £153 million was paid by BHS to Carmen.

Egregious failures of corporate governance

• Sir Philip's rush to drive through the sale of BHS - "a chain that had become a financial millstone and threatened his reputation" - was the culmination of a sorry litany of failures of corporate governance and greed.  Regulatory concerns were circumvented, advisers were heavily incentivised to progress the deal. Dominic Chappell, his friends and associates were enticed by the personal rewards on offer without taking any personal risks. The Committees are publishing for the first time with this report the Due Diligence reports produced by Olswang (and associated RAL Board minutes), which show their advice against the purchase and express concern that RAL were reliant on Sir Philip making good his unwritten assurances.
• The complacent performance of Lord Grabiner as the non-executive Chairman of the Taveta group boards represented the apogee of weak corporate governance. It was his responsibility to provide independent challenge and oversight. Instead he was content to provide a veneer of establishment credibility to the group while happily disengaging from the key decisions he had a responsibility to scrutinise. For this deplorable performance he received a considerable salary. It is permissible in law for a director to delegate certain functions to other persons, but if a director allows himself to be dominated, or manipulated by one of their number, he may have gone beyond the boundaries of what is proper. He could be found to be in breach of duty and subject to disqualification. All directors of Taveta and RAL have serious questions to answer about their performance in those roles.
• Sir Philip Green faced a considerable challenge in finding a credible buyer for a business that was consistently losing money and had a pension scheme with a large and growing deficit. It was clear that Chappell's team were out of their depth, woefully short of the requisite experience and expertise, notably lacking the credible senior retailer Sir Philip once insisted on. They brought no new money to the deal, took no personal risk, could offer no equity and had no means of raising funds on a sustainable basis. Ultimately, Dominic Chappell and RAL failed all of Sir Philip's nominal tests for a buyer. They were manifestly unsuitable owners of BHS. It is inconceivable that someone with Sir Philip Green's experience seriously considered otherwise.

Collapse under incompetent and self-serving RAL

• The report documents the true numbers behind the sale. The board of Taveta Investments Ltd was presented, two weeks after the event, with a rosy picture, while the reality was very different. The balance sheet included cash for immediate liabilities, property deals that took many months to materialise, funds that went to RAL never to return and equity that was a loan on punitive terms. It was patently obvious that there was not enough cash in BHS to give it a realistic chance of even medium term survival.
• RAL's failures include some blame for the pension scheme, which they accepted responsibility for with a "negligent and cavalier disregard for the risks and potential consequences", negligence which "continued into their incompetent and self-serving ownership of the company". In putting his 'home team' first, Mr Chappell and his fellow directors were personally enriched as BHS failed around them. Two directors jumped ship on the day that RAL acquired the business with personal financial rewards that it would take many BHS employees decades to earn. The others continued to profit handsomely from their positions without fulfilling their requisite responsibilities.
• In effect, Mr Chappell "had his hands in the till". His description of £2.6 million that he personally took, in addition to an outstanding £1.5 million family loan, as a "drip" in the ocean is an insult to the employees and pensioners of BHS that he let down.

Chairs' comments

Rt Hon Frank Field MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said:

"One person, and one person alone, is really responsible for the BHS disaster. While Sir Philip Green signposted blame to every known player, the final responsibility for up to 11,000 job losses and a gigantic pension fund hole is his. His reputation as the king of retail lies in the ruins of BHS. His family took out of BHS and Arcadia a fortune beyond the dreams of avarice, and he's still to make good his boast of 'fixing' the pension fund. What kind of man is it who can count his fortune in billions but does not know what decent behaviour is?"

Iain Wright MP, Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, said:

"BHS's demise has created many losers, particularly the 11,000 staff facing the loss of their jobs and the 20,000 pensioners facing significant reductions to their pensions. The actions of people in this sorry and tragic saga have left a stain on the reputation of business which reputable and honourable people in enterprise and commerce will find appalling. The sale of BHS in March 2015 is crucial to its eventual collapse a year later. The sale of BHS to a consortium led by a twice-bankrupt chancer with no retail experience should never have gone ahead; and this was obvious at the time. The reason it did, however, was Sir Philip Green. He was determined to get the deal done, no matter that the buyer could not deliver what BHS needed. There was a complete failure of corporate governance, with Sir Philip bulldozing the sale through, without proper oversight or challenge from his weak and impotent board.

While BHS staff face uncertain job prospects and pensioners worry about their future entitlements, it's clear that a large cast of directors, advisers, and hangers-on enriched themselves off the back of BHS, including Dominic Chappell and his fellow RAL directors. Chappell took no risk and put no money into the venture and yet gained huge rewards as BHS crumbled around him. His failure is bad enough but that he effectively had his hands in the till is an insult to the employees and pensioners of BHS that he let down so badly."

 Image - Philip Green

Theresa May’s decision to scrap bursaries for nurses and midwives as one of her first acts as Prime Minister is a “depressing insight” into her priorities in government, an SNP MSP has said today – and stands in stark contrast to her rhetoric since taking office. 

The decision – sneaked out in a series of announcements yesterday - stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric the new Prime Minister has sought to employ since taking office, promising to “do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you”.

The SNP in government is fully committed to protecting free tuition and bursaries for nursing students in Scotland. 

Commenting, SNP MSP Emma Harper – who is a qualified nurse – said:

“After just a week in the job, Theresa May has decided to cut bursaries for student nurses and midwives as one of her first acts in Downing Street – giving working people a depressing insight into the priorities she’ll pursue in government. 

“And the fact that the Tory government tried to sneak this announcement out just before recess shows that even they are embarrassed by this regressive, unfair move.

“Our nurses do vital work which is too often underappreciated, which is why the SNP in government is clear that we will continue to protect free tuition and bursaries for nursing students

“Nurses and other working people across the UK now see Theresa May’s empty rhetoric for what is – and hard-working nurses in Scotland can rest assured that in Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, they have a government who will always stand up for their interests.”

Interested in becoming a Nurse - please download the guide below