"Robbins has nevertheless been made a scapegoat."
With the blame-game dominating the week in Westminster, our IfG experts explored the fall-out from the Mandelson vetting row and the sacking of Olly Robbins.
Watch or listen to the discussion 📺🎧 www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/event/peter-...
By contrast, *sharing* details revealed in vetting may well be a criminal offence. And even aside from that, something as basic as 'new concerns re Mandelson were revealed in vetting that are not in the public domain' would seriously undermine the integrity of the process
That's what I mean when I say it's a judgement call (esp in non-regulated professions). But you don't 'have' to break confidentiality except in specific circumstances w/ risk of harm, *if* you're bound by statutory guidance (and even then it's an employment/regulatory requirement, not a legal one).
That's not right. Psychologists have duty to respect confidentiality, unless risk of future harm, when it's a judgement call. Non-regulated professions make their own calls. But also, it's a v different situation! Plenty of crimes will be disclosed during vetting that are never passed on to police.
Surprising to hear Emily Thornberry suggesting that Robbins saying 'there were concerns about Mandelson's vetting but we overcame them' or 'some issues came up in the vetting that are not in the public domain' wouldn't compromise the confidentiality of the process. They clearly would!
But *should* info on children at risk of exploitation always be shared? What does that mean for kids' relationships w/ youth workers, or how police might respond if a child is a victim of an unrelated offence, or there is a domestic abuse complaint between their parents etc. It's not straightforward
Take youth justice: lots of case reviews highlight that data on children at risk of exploitation is not always shared, so police don't respond appropriately/opportunities to intervene are missed.
ah yep I see what you mean and agree w/ that. I def think it's often assumed that more data-sharing or a shared data record across services is universally a good thing, when in fact there are some real minefields!
Absolutely agree that tech can't solve joined-up policymaking/public services. Really interested in why you think joined-up services are a mistake though - I can see some risks/downsides, but some real benefits too?
The extent to which I would much rather be writing about the IfG's new report on employment support (read it! It's really interesting) tomorrow than yet another round of 'man who refuses to do the job of PM properly continues to be bad at it' cannot be overstated.
Excellent piece from @hannahkeenan.bsky.social here on the broader fallout from the latest Mandelson row. Seen a few people asking ‘why does this matter?’ — here’s your answer.
EVENT | In conversation with Rt Hon James Murray MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury: How will the government boost public service productivity?
📆Today, 12:30 — 13:30
Join us online or in-person today as Rt Hon James Murray MP discusses plans to improve productivity in the public sector.
Extremely on brand for me to be dropping official statistics on a @youngvulgarian.marieleconte.com thread about the decline of the MILF
A line chart from the University of Bedfordshire of England under 18 conception, maternity and abortion rates, 1998 - 2022, where conception and maternity rates decline slowly from 1998 to 2008, then all three fall rapidly and substantially to 2020 before flatlining or ticking up slightly. Overall conception rate for under-18s has fallen from mid-40s per 1,000 under-18s in late 90s to around 14 in 2022.
Hmm, this is not right on either count! Teen pregnancies fell from 1970s-90s, but were rising again in late 1990s. Blair gov missed their target of halving rate but it dropped by about a third 1998-2010 and has since fallen off a cliff. See www.beds.ac.uk/tpke/data/
I do actually think they're very different! As a politician, you have to make a normative decision about what you *ought* to do, and then argue for that. As a lawyer, you don't pick your side: you make the best argument you can on the facts in front of you - it's ultimately problem-solving.
Great thread here on some of the practical difficulties police face getting stolen phones back — even when they know where they are
This is an awful story
It's also a case study of why services are costing more and still failing people
This is the worst possible outcome for the children, for the NHS, for the councils, and for national govt
It's worth looking at how they ended up there 👇
www.hsj.co.uk/emergency-ca...
We saw more attempted murders than homicides for the first time in 2014/15, and that's been consistently true since. The gap has also widened since then. This is probably a medical care/first aid effect.
I have a chart for this! Basically: no, murder & attempted murder have both dropped. Probably is true tho that improvements in medical care & especially first aid training (eg for police) has made a difference over the last 10 ish years.
NEW BLOG: a year ago, the government announced the abolition of NHS England and the reorganisation of integrated care boards (ICBs)
What has happened since then? And how is that decision affecting the NHS and other services?
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/one-...
I’m joining @pippacrerar.bsky.social and @verabaird.bsky.social on the Week in Westminster at 11 today to talk jury trial reforms. What is the government doing? How much of a difference will it make? And what are the arguments for and against? Have a listen here www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b...
The dire situation in the criminal courts requires action.
But reforms to jury trials risk tilting the system too far towards speed over fairness and could lead to further declines in performance.
Read the report by @cassiarowland.bsky.social
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...
I promise you, I very much didn’t! And I think ‘pretty much approves’ requires some…selective reading
In terms of other solutions, I'd focus on doing everything they can to drive up productivity, esp driving up hours per day spent actually hearing cases, which has fallen substantially. And listing cases likely to plead guilty on the day early, to clear them out the backlog
I'm not opposed to all measures to reduce jury trials - there are some other ways to do it I discuss in my paper here, e.g. reclassifying some offences as summary only. On appeals, success rate has been climbing as number falls, which suggests there aren't many frivolous ones
This really matters because the biggest problem in criminal courts right now is poor productivity - not because people aren't working hard, but because there aren't enough staff, the buildings keep flooding, the IT doesn't work etc. Piling major reforms on top of this could seriously backfire.
Major change programmes take up time and attention for staff and leadership, often making performance worse. These reforms are also extremely unpopular with criminal lawyers, risking further problems recruiting and retaining enough lawyers.
The gov's argument is that things are so bad, they have to try everything - "nothing short of throwing the kitchen sink", a la courts minister Sarah Sackman. This sounds sensible. But in practice, there's a problem: it's really hard to do structural reform and increase productivity at the same time.
I wrote a piece for LBC on how proposed reforms to criminal trials actually risk making things worse, rather than better www.lbc.co.uk/article/crim...
Nice reference to my new report in the Guardian liveblog! You can read the whole thing here
www.theguardian.com/politics/liv...
