I cannot be the only person with personal experience of managing schools whose jaw dropped at reading the headlines of the Reform report launched last week: Must Do Better: Spending on Schools.

Based on lots of number crunching of data tables, it came to the conclusion that school spending could be cut by close to 20 per cent without compromising standards.

Whilst there are deceptive elements of truth in some of the assertions, there are also significant levels of disconnect between large sections of the report, which undermine its value. Sadly I suspect that the headline message, that the ring fence around school budgets and the pupil premium should be cut, will carry some weight with those who do not have to manage schools on a day to day basis, meeting the ever the increasing demands to raise standards.

It is true that funding has increased over the last ten years but the vast majority of schools will have seen nowhere near a real term increase at the 90 per cent level indicated in the report. The truth is that in the last three years the majority of schools have seen a reduction in real terms in their budgets.

Anyone with a detailed understanding of school funding will know that there is no way that the reductions proposed in this report could be achieved without making a significant number of schools impossible to run.

The  attempt to link funding and school achievement is flawed as it fails to take into account the different contexts of schools. The state of the buildings, the number of students, the level of staff turnover and types of qualifications on offer all have an impact.

The simplistic non sequitur from the report’s headline to the conclusion that class sizes should be allowed to rise shows a lack of understanding about what is actually meant by class size and how that relates to the cost of running a school where pupils learn effectively.

The information on the DfE website shows a significant range of pupil to teacher ratios across the country. One might make, and it seems the report has done so, some simplistic assumptions to contextualise the difference between a school with a ratio of say 13 and similar school elsewhere in the country with a ratio of 16.

However, it is not about having larger classes or smaller classes but about having cost effective classes. I cannot distil over 30 years of timetabling and curriculum planning experience into one paragraph to explain that in detail, but I am happy to elaborate on this to anyone with an hour to spare.

Schools are also having to do more with less. Where once there was funding for young people’s careers advice and guidance, counselling, provision for at-risk students, curriculum development, sports partnerships and other activities, most schools are now having to pay for these out of their own budgets.

Finally, the report forgets that the attainment system is norm referenced, which means that half of schools will be below the average no matter how well they achieve.

School leaders already work hard to ensure that their budgets are spent wisely and efficiently. We have seen a clear focus on using research evidence, such as that in the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit on the spending pupil premium, to implement cost effective strategies to improve student attainment and progress.

The report asserts that the overriding priority for headteachers should be to invest in the quality of teaching. Apart from the fact that this is akin to asserting that the Treasury should be interested in money, the statement fails to elaborate on how one funds such investment to impact on the quality of student learning and progress, which is the real outcome.

Funding schools is a complex issue which requires complex solutions. ASCL supports the move to a national funding formula and we will always engage in a constructive dialogue with the DfE to ensure that changes to the distribution of school funding are equitable and sufficient.

Mr Gove himself is unashamed about his clear demand for higher standards and this is echoed in the significant raising of the Ofsted bar. Headline grabbing reports such as this one undermine attempts by the profession to deliver the required outcomes and engage in sensible discussion of how one funds schools in an efficient manner that is fit for purpose.

1. The tweet that sums up the English Defence League – James Bloodworth

2. UKIP’s populism could present a greater threat to the left than the right – Tim Dixon

3. Is homelessness about to become a crime? – James Bloodworth

4. It’s time to heed Phillip Hammond’s warning and stop talking about gay marriage. Let’s just say ‘I do’ and move on – Chris Creegan

5. Royal mail privatisation – taxpayer, prepare to be ripped off (again)! – Mario Dunn

• Sign up to our email service.

Sir,

Douglas Murray’s personal attack on me (Spectator, 10 May 2013) involves a string of falsehoods. He claims ‘It is no one’s fault if they have not heard of Hoare. His opinions are largely self-published.’  Yet the outfit of which Murray is currently Associate Director, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), published one of my reports on its website every month for most of the period that I worked for it (2005-2102); they were all erased a few months after Murray was appointed to the post. He accuses me of having ‘an unquenchable animus’ against him, and claims ‘This has been demonstrated in an endless stream of blogs and tweets.’ Yet I have mentioned Murray in only five of the 251 (at the time of writing) posts on my blog; one of these was only in passing and one was only in response to attacks on me by his HJS colleagues. He accuses me of ‘frequent abuse’; I have never abused him once, much less ‘frequently’.

Murray claims that my problem with him is ‘my [Murray’s] insistence on expressing my own opinions rather than his [Hoare’s].’ I have no problem with him expressing his own opinions; I simply frequently find the opinions he does express repellent, and exercise my right to say this. It’s called ‘freedom of speech’. He claims I object to his use of the term ‘white British’, and suggests ‘if he wants to continue his attempts to insinuate that I am racist because of this usage then he really ought to go the whole hog and accuse the authors, compilers and most participants in the 2011 census of being racists as well.’ But the problem is not his use of the term ‘white British’; it is his claim that ‘London has become a foreign country’ because ‘in 23 of London’s 33 boroughs “white Britons” are now in a minority’. This suggests the problem lies in there being too many British citizens with black, brown or yellow skin, or with white skin but whose families originate outside the UK. I don’t believe the authors of the 2011 census were saying anything like that.

Finally, Murray claims I was never a leading member of the HJS but merely ‘a freelance contributor to the website’. Yet as Greater Europe Co-Director, then European Neighbourhood Section Director, I appeared on the HJS staff list on the website from 2005 until the start of 2012; a screenshot of this staff list from around March 2008 can be found on my blog. I have documents in my possession proving that I was centrally involved in the organisation long before Murray joined, and helped formulate its leadership strategy in conjunction with its current President Brendan Simms, its current Executive Director Alan Mendoza, and others whose names have vanished from the website.

Obama delivers national security address

President Obama has given a major speech on national security, as his administration faces further accusations it unduly targeted journalists involved in leak cases.

Speaking at the National Defence University yesterday afternoon, Obama said it was necessary to define the “nature and scope” of the struggle with global terrorism. He revealed he had signed a new presidential directive that insisted upon “clear guidelines” for drone strikes and called on Congress to work with him in closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Obama also claimed he was “troubled” by the effect recent leak investigations might have on journalism and said the Department of Justice would review its guidelines concerning reporters.

There was praise for the approach Obama took in his speech.Mother Jones’s David Corn said a president had never spoken so forthrightly about the challenges of counterterrorism, while The National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar conceded Obama had made ‘persuasive’ policy arguments despite indulging in ‘professorial jam sessions’. However, others were sceptical about the substance of the address. Commentators argued the president had tried to offload responsibility for Guantanamo onto Congress, rejected proposals for oversight of the drone programme and implicitly dismissed a balance between security and the rule of law.

A day before Obama’s speech, Attorney General Eric Holderconfirmed for the first time that four American citizens had been killed in drone attacks since 2011. In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder named radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year old son Abdulrahman as among those killed in Yemen and Pakistan. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and his Independent colleague from Maine, Angus King, are using the revelations to push for greater scrutiny of drone strikes that target American-born nationals.

Obama’s focus on national security issues came as questions were raised about why the Department of Justice named Fox News reporter James Rosen as an “aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator” in a recent espionage case. Rosen, who has not been charged with any crime, wrote a story in 2009 about a classified report on North Korea’s nuclear programme allegedly leaked by State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. The DOJ stands accused of accessing Fox News phone records, numbers belonging to Rosen’s parents and the reporter’s personal email. It has also been claimed Holder signed off on Rosen’s search warrant.

In related news, House Republicans are taking a greater interest in the Department of Justice’s seizure of phone records belonging to Associated Press journalists. The DOJ has additionally denied allegations it compromised the computers of a CBS reporter investigating the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal and the fallout from Benghazi.

Related polling: [YouGov]

Official at centre of IRS targeting storm declines to give Hill testimony

An official embroiled in the row over the Internal Revenue Service’s inappropriate targeting of conservative groups refused to give evidence when she came before Congress this week.

Appearing before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, Lois Lerner – the IRS employee who first revealed details of the inappropriate targeting – insisted she had not misled Congress about her knowledge of the case and invoked the fifth amendment to avoid giving testimony that might be considered incriminating. The panel’s Republican Chair Darrell Issa attempted to convince her otherwise but was ultimately forced to dismiss her. He has since claimed Lerner effectively waived her constitutional rights and has pledged to recall her for questioning. Lerner was placed on administrative leave from the IRS on Thursday evening.

Other IRS and federal government officials were grilled about their knowledge of the scandal on Wednesday. Chief among these witnesses was former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman, who was asked by a member of House Oversight whether he had ever raised the case in over 100 visits to the White House. The ex-commissioner faced a gentler ride when he appeared before the Senate Finance Committee a day earlier, although members of that panel pressed him for a comprehensive apology.

The Obama administration’s response to the scandal has come in for further criticism, particularly after it gave conflicting details about its knowledge of the investigation and the release of relevant information. The President’s Press Secretary Jay Carney conceded on Wednesday that some complaints about the White House’s conduct were “legitimate”, but said providing a full account was difficult given the new media environment.

House Speaker John Boehner has said it is “inconceivable” President Obama knew nothing of the IRS scandal before he read about it in the newspapers. However, a Washington Post investigation has suggested senior aides elected not to tell the president about a critical probe into the agency when they heard of it in April. In terms of the administration’s involvement in the targeting itself, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J Russell George admitted his organisation had not asked IRS officials if they received direction from the White House but added there was no evidence for such a link.

Related polling: [Pew] [ABC/WaPo] [USA Today/PRS] [CNN]

Senate committee approves immigration bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee has formally endorsed the Gang of 8’s immigration bill after resolving disagreements over contentious amendments.

The Democratic-controlled panel voted 13-5 on Tuesday in favour of the bipartisan group’s legislation, setting up a full Senate vote which is likely to take place in June. Two GOP Gang members and veteran Utah Senator Orrin Hatch joined members of President Obama’s party to see the bill through. There was broad praise for the committee’s work, and even leading bill opponent Chuck Grassley acknowledged its hearings had been “very fair”.

Passage of the bill was ensured when Hatch and Gang of 8 Democrat Chuck Schumer reached a compromise on an amendment proposed by the Utah Senator concerning visas for high-skilled foreign workers. It was also secured when Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy decided not to press an amendment in support of LGBT binational couples. This move sparked fury among gay rights advocates, although some hope a Supreme Court ruling against the Defence of Marriage Act would enable same-sex couples to obtain visas.

Meanwhile in the House of Representatives, a cross-party group drafting its own immigration legislation has again been navigating a thorny dispute over healthcare. Democratic leaders had raised significant doubts about principles agreed by bipartisan negotiators last week, warning they could prevent undocumented aliens from accessing subsidised care in emergencies. However, members of the House group now claimed to have resolved this issue and say they will begin working up legislative text. Speaker Boehner and his colleagues earlier insisted delays in the group’s work would not oblige the House to take up the Senate’s bill.

Reid, McConnell spar over nuclear option

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Republican opposite number Mitch McConnell have argued publicly over suggestions the Democratic leadership is looking for a fight on filibuster rules.

Speaking after a week of bickering over Senate procedure, The Nevadan said yesterday GOP obstruction of presidential nominees “continues unabated” and attacked Republicans for not honouring an agreement on confirmation votes. Reid added he was not making a threat, but just wanted his chamber to “work well”. This did not cut any ice with Senator McConnell, who alleged Reid was trying to manufacture a crisis and claimed Obama’s nominees had been approved at a quicker rate than George W Bush’s appointees. Statistical evidence does not necessarily back up this claim.

Reid earlier downplayed suggestions he wanted to invoke the ‘nuclear option’ and embark on wholesale changes to the filibuster, telling journalists he would do nothing at this time to jeopardise immigration reform. In any case, it is thought the Majority Leader lacks the votes to radically alter Senate rules.

In a related development, the Senate on Thursday endorsed President Obama’s nomination of administration lawyer Sri Srinivasan to sit on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Srinivasan was confirmed by an overwhelming margin, something that boosts his chances of being appointed to the Supreme Court one day. The prospect of Obama making further appointments to the critical appeals court has sparked alarm among some right-wing outlets: The Wall Street Journal argued the president should not be allowed to engage in “court packing”. Liberal commentators have dismissed this argument.

Republicans tangle over budget

Senior Republican senators have publicly condemned their more conservative colleagues for refusing to open congressional budget negotiations.

In a testy exchange on Tuesday, Senators John McCain and Susan Collins criticised Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for objecting to a formal conference that would reconcile budgets passed by the Senate and House. The Arizona Senator was particularly scathing about GOP demands that Democrats not insist on tax increases or a debt ceiling rise as part of talks.

McCain engaged in a similar clash a day later with his Gang of 8 partner Marco Rubio, and returned to the fray on Thursday with a warning that Democrats might use the impasse over the budget as an excuse to change Senate rules.

Oklahoma tornado tragedy sparks GOP disagreement over funding

A Republican senator and GOP congressman from Oklahoma are at odds over funding for victims of the tornado which devastated the city of Moore this week.

Congressman Tom Cole – the representative for the area hit by the disaster and Deputy Majority Whip in the House –contradicted Senator Tom Coburn’s demand that funding relief only be granted if corresponding budget cuts are identified. Speaker Boehner has played his cards close to his chest on the issue but says debate about funding offsets is “healthy”.

President Obama has said Americans will support Oklahomans as they recover from the tornado and is promising their state will get “everything that it needs right away”. He has also dispatched Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate to the area.

News in Brief

• Petraeus had big role in drafting Benghazi talking points [WaPo]; Victoria Nuland tapped for State Department promotion [WaPo]

• Kerry warns US will increase support for Syria rebels if talks fail [CBS]; chemical weapons witnesses to be brought out of country [Daily Beast]

• Obama deplores killing of British soldier in London [TPM]

• Prez to meet Xi next month [ABC News]; First Couple to travel to SA in June [TPM]

• McConnell says Burma sanctions won’t be extended [Bloomberg]

• Transport, Commerce picks come through confirmation hearings [NYT] [Huffington Post]

• Election commission members announced [WaPo]

• Bernanke in defence of stimulus [BBC News]

• Apple chief pushes back on tax criticism [WSJ]

• WH threatens to veto House student loan move [Boston.com]

• Farm bill withstands challenges [Politico]

• GOP leadership’s Obamacare revision could return to floor [Roll Call]

• Court fights loom for birth control mandate [Politico]

• Paul Ryan to write book [NRO]; Warren gets publisher [Boston Globe]

• VA Lt Gov candidate controversies threaten running mate [CNN]

• Another poll shows Markey leading in MA [Emerson]; GOP rival lashes out [BuzzFeed]

• Weiner announces NYC comeback [NYT]

• Garcetti elected LA mayor [Time]

Despite Osborne failing on every conceivable measure of economic competence, Labour still lags behind the Tories in the polls on the economy. To start restoring trust, Labour needs to take control of the economic debate.

For too long the Labour Party has been on the back foot. One area where Labour could gain ground on the economy is the ballooning housing benefit bill, currently costing the taxpayer £24 billion a year. A commitment to reduce this would demonstrate that Labour is serious about tackling the deficit.

Despite the coalition’s attempts to cut it, the bill is forecast to increase over the coming years. As has become clear, the housing benefit bill cannot be meaningfully reduced without tackling the root causes – high rents and low wages – something the Tories haven’t even begun to attempt. Two things are required: a mass house building programme and the introduction of a living wage.

Investing in new homes is both economically sensible and socially necessary. We are in the midst of nothing short of a housing crisis. Home ownership is in decline and out of reach for the vast majority of young people without access to a bank of mum and dad; it would take 22 years for someone on an average low to middle income to save for a deposit.

This wouldn’t be so much of a problem if there was social housing, but thanks to Thatcher’s Right to Buy scheme (which has facilitated the sale of 1.8 million homes to date), as well as successive governments failing to replace them, there are now 1.8 million households on the waiting lists.

That leaves private renting as the option of last resort. But research by Shelter has shown that two thirds of private renters are struggling to keep a roof over their heads as rents continue to soar while wages remain flat.

The coalition government, whose 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review slashed capital funding for new homes by 60 per cent, has presided over the lowest levels of house building since the 1920s. In doing so they have demonstrated a reckless complacency and clearly haven’t grasped the scale the crisis.

Labour should make a manifesto commitment to build 1.5 million homes over a five year parliament. That may sound a lot, but this is what we need just to keep pace with demand. Around 220,000 new households are forming annually, but last year only 115,620 homes were built.

We also need to ensure that work really does pay, which can only be achieved by legislating for a living wage, not by slashing benefits. The case for a living wage is compelling. A living wage – £8.55 per hour in London and £7.45 for the rest of the UK – is what the Centre for Research in Social Policy has calculated to be the minimum required to meet basic living costs, yet a fifth of workers don’t receive it.

Over 90 per cent of recent housing benefit claimants are in work.  The National Housing Federation has estimated that by 2015 1.2 million working people will be reliant on housing benefit to stay in their homes. The Institute for Fiscal Studies projected a saving to the Treasury (in higher income tax receipts and lower benefit and tax credit spending) of £6 billion if all private sector employers increased wages to a living wage, not to mention the boost it would provide to consumer spending.

Low wages and high rents are not only costing tenants, but taxpayers too. The state is subsidising landlords who charge extortionate rents and employers who fail to pay enough to cover basic living costs. This is absurd. With the General Election only two years away, Labour should add flesh to the bones of the one nation theme by committing to a mass house building programme and a living wage.

Investing in housing would help kick-start economic growth and boosting supply would bring rents under control. A living wage would put money into people’s pockets, helping to stimulate local economies and reducing the burden on the taxpayer in the process. Moreover, it would show that Labour has answers to the housing and living standards crises, while at the same time sending the message that Labour understands the importance of deficit reduction.

Last month, a ComRes poll found that 58 per ent think the coalition’s economic strategy has failed and that it will be ‘time for a change’ in 2015. There couldn’t be a better time for Ed Miliband to outline an alternative.

The spiralling housing benefit bill presents an opportunity for Labour to show that borrowing for investment can stimulate growth and reduce the deficit in the long-term; an opportunity to show that social justice can be combined with economic efficiency; and an opportunity to start making up ground in the economic debate.

Labour should challenge the Tories to match pledges on house building and the living wage. We will see then if they really are on the side of those who want to work hard and ‘get on’.

The response this week by the usual clique of sceptics and deniers to new research suggesting the short-term rate of global warming might be less than previously thought was as predictable as it was misleading.

Matt Ridley, one of the most vociferous, told Times readers (£) that there was a “strong possibility that climate change will be slow and harmless” and that there is “little doubt that the damage being done by climate change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet”.

But, Mr Ridley’s climate complacency is completely misguided.

Professor Miles Allen, one of the authors of the Nature Geoscience study, pointed out in the Guardian that although their estimate on the rate of warming was 30 per cent lower than average climate models used by the UN’s climate panel, “this is hardly a game changer: At face value our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead”.

But then again, he said, they might not. “No one places their faith in any single climate model, and no one has done so for 20 years.”

We may not be certain of the speed, but we do know we’re on the fast track to easily exceed a two degree rise in temperatures above pre-industrial levels – and could even be on course to a catastrophic increase of four degrees.

As another of the authors, Piers Forster from Leeds University, said, the study “has an effect but not a massive effect on projections. We still need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions very significantly to keep below two degrees”.

Our planet is currently around one degree warmer than pre-industrial levels and we are already witnessing the devastating impacts from more extreme weather.

Over recent years our television screens have beamed into our homes a steady flow of devastating floods, storms, droughts and landslides from across the planet. Furthermore, with the knock-on effect of rising food costs we’re all paying the price – especially the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

It isn’t the Matt Ridleys of this world who are suffering most from climate change. It’s the poorest in society, especially those from developing countries, who stand to lose most from reduced efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The rich and wealthy will be able to insulate themselves from the worst impacts over coming years. They can afford higher food prices and insure their properties and possessions.

Climate sceptics often like to appear as the champions of cash-strapped consumers against higher energy prices, but the reality is that households across the country are paying an increasingly high cost for our nation’s fossil fuel dependency. This week the government’s independent advisor, the Committee on Climate Change, reported that “investment in a portfolio of low-carbon technologies could save consumers £25-45 billion, rising to £100 billion with higher gas and carbon prices”.

The motivating factor for many climate sceptical bloggers and columnists is often an ideological dislike of government intervention – but the route to lower energy bills requires exactly that.

Affordable energy needs a massive ramping up of government-funded energy efficiency programmes. It needs government financial support to drive down costs of low carbon technologies. And it requires government action to curb the profits of the big six energy firms.

This month another study was published. It showed that 97 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific academic papers concurred that climate change was human-made.

We may not yet know exactly how sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gases but we cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence on the need for rapid government action to slash emissions.

• The government’s gay marriage bill was passed in the commons this week by 366 votes to 161. The bill wasn’t popular with the parliamentary Tory party, however, with 133 Conservative MPs voting against it.

The issue dominated headlines in large part because of a ‘wrecking amendment’ tabled by Conservative MP Tim Loughton, who opposes gay marriage.

A group of Tory MPs led by Loughton attempted to derail the bill with an amendment to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples. However MPs instead backed a Labour plan to consult on changing legislation governing civil partnerships.

This week James Bloodworth looked at the consistent level of support gay marriage has received from the public in recent years, while Chris Creegan argued that gay marriage wasn’t only about a stronger society, but about fundamental freedoms. Peter Tatchell also looked at gay rights across the Commonwealth.

• Stewart Lansley and IPPR director Nick Pearce went head to head on Left Foot Forward this week on the issue of child poverty – or more specifically over the suggestion that the 2010 Child Poverty Act should be dropped by the Labour Party.

The act hoped to eradicate child poverty by 2020, a goal which the UK is no longer on course to meet.

Lansley argued that the best option would be to stick with the act’s principles and targets but revise the timetable, whereas Pearce wrote that the coalition had already abandoned the act and Labour “would do better to come up with credible plans for reducing child poverty that stand a meaningful chance of success”.

• In its assessment of the UK economy on Wednesday, the IMF said that despite the coalition’s economic strategy earning it medium term credibility, planned fiscal tightening would act as a drag on growth.

“Persistent slow growth could permanently damage medium-term growth prospects – this could arise if private sector deleveraging is larger than expected, credit conditions fail to improve, external demand does not pick up, and the drag from fiscal consolidation is greater than anticipated,” the IMF’s report said.

This week Left Foot Forward covered the report as it was released, and Graeme Henderson of IPPR North looked at the government’s misleading message that public sector jobs are acting as a drag on growth in the private sector.

Progressive of the Week:

Danny Dorling of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS) had a new paper out this week on health inequalities in the UK.

In it Dorling looked at the growing health inequalities that are blighting British cities – in Glasgow for example mortality counts during 2012 and 2013 have been rising. The last time actual rises in mortality were reported was during the depression of the 1930s.

Dorling’s work offers an important starting point in terms of addressing an issue that’s likely to be exacerbated by the coalition government’s austerity measures.

Regressive of the week:

Speaking in the Commons on Monday night, Conservative MP Gerald Howarth referred to something he called the “aggressive homosexual community” during a speech opposing gay marriage.

“There are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who see [equal marriage] as but a stepping stone to something even further,” Mr Howarth said.

Howarth did not, however, elaborate on what further measures these “aggressive homosexuals” might want.

Evidence of the Week:

The committee on climate change published analysis on Friday showing that every family in Britain could save at least £1,131 and as much as £4,525 if the government adopted a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

Under ‘central case assumptions’ about gas and carbon prices, the report indicated that a strategy focused on the deployment of low-carbon power throughout the 2020s would result in cost-savings of £25-45 billion compared to a strategy of investment in gas-fired generation.

This translates as £1,131 to £2,036 per household. If gas and carbon prices were higher, the cost savings could be as much as £100 billion or £4,525 per household.

Ensuring a reliable, economically viable and environment-friendly energy supply is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. In 2011 Germany embarked on an ambitious programme to transform its energy system. In future, Germany’s energy supply will be generated primarily from renewables.

This new policy was triggered by the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, which led to a reassessment of the risk of nuclear power and the decision to phase it out by the end of 2022.

The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change meant that the only way forward was an expansion of renewable energy sources and greater energy efficiency. Germany set itself two targets: a 50 per cent reduction in primary energy consumption by the year 2050 compared with 2008, and a share of renewables in final energy consumption of 60 per cent by 2050. For electricity generation, the share of renewables is to rise from 20 per cent in 2011 to at least 80 per cent by 2050 .

Germany’s decision provides a unique opportunity to show how competitiveness can be combined with sustainable development in a leading industrial nation.

The main tools of this transformation are economic incentives set by the government. The Renewable Energy Sources Act guarantees priority access to the grid to providers of renewable electricity at a long-term fixed tariff. The costs are divided among all consumers through a surcharge. To keep the costs of this surcharge – and thus energy costs – affordable, the support will regularly decrease for new installations to take account of market developments and technological progress.

The aim is that eventually no support will be necessary because renewable technology is firmly established on the market. Concessions are granted to energy-intensive industries in order to maintain their competitiveness.

In addition, the German government has launched a wide range of initiatives to enhance energy savings and promote more efficient use of energy.

Expansion and modernisation of the electricity grids is the most important factor in ensuring greater penetration of renewable electricity production. An estimated 2,800 miles of new electricity highways will be needed by 2020 to transport large volumes of wind-generated electricity from the north of Germany to the economic centres in the west and south. The scale of the challenge is comparable with the infrastructure development gap following German reunification.

In spite of these challenges, the results of the new policy are encouraging. Renewables are playing a rapidly increasing role in energy supply. Energy consumption is falling, in spite of a growing economy. A reliable electricity supply is being provided despite the shutdown of eight nuclear power plants.

One challenge that remains is the burden of rising energy prices. The renewables surcharge raises costs for end users. Greater volumes of electricity generation from renewables exert downward pressure on wholesale prices, but lead to higher surcharges because of the fixed feed-in tariff.

Further adjustments to the incentive system for producers of renewables will be necessary. Further progress in energy efficiency will be needed to offset price increases. Ultimately, the costs must be seen alongside the savings resulting from the lower consumption of fossil fuels.

As well as meeting ecological and climate policy needs, Germany’s new energy policy is also a strategy for economic growth. Renewable energies, energy efficiency and resource-saving technologies create supply security, jobs and value added.

Germany wants to demonstrate that a major industrialised country can move away from nuclear power, decouple growth from resource consumption, increase efficiency – and be the more prosperous for it.

Analysis published today by the independent Committee on Climate Change shows that every family in Britain could save at least £1,131 and as much as £4,525 if the government adopted a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

All of us drew little comfort today from the latest immigration statistics. This data show a 23 per cent fall in family migration in the year to September 2012, compared with the year to September 2011.

The immigration statistics are being heralded by the government as proof that its goal of reducing net migration is working. There has been a fall in net migration from 242,000 in the year to September 2011 to 153,000 over the 12 months to September 2012.

Work visa, family and student migration are down, although reductions in student migration have mostly been born by the further education and English language sectors, where numbers have fallen by 46 per cent compared with the preceding year.

Asylum applications have increased a little and more worryingly, so have asylum backlogs which have now increased by 24 per cent. There is no evidence of floods of eastern European migrants, with migration from this group down by a staggering 19 per cent over the previous year.

Family migration has fallen to 62,000 in the year to September 2012. This group includes people who are accompanying  immediate family who have come to study or to work, but also a larger group who have applied to come to the UK on a family visa as spouses, civil partners or dependent relatives.

Some 40,925 people were admitted to the UK on family visas in the year to September 2012. This figure has fallen and is likely to continue to fall as the new family migration rules take hold. These rules apply to any British citizen who wants to bring in a spouse or dependent relative from outside the EU. They do not apply to EU nationals with a non-EU family dependent, an illustration of the arbitrary nature of these changes.

The rule changes introduce a £18,600 minimum income threshold (to be maintained over 12 months) for a person who wants to bring a spouse to the UK. This figure was reached as being a level where a person is ‘fiscally neutral’ that is when he or she is not longer entitled to income-related benefits such as tax credits.

But the application of this threshold again seems arbitrary.

Property, savings under £16,000, the overseas spouses earnings and job offers are excluded from the calculation. Moreover, the income threshold test is applied three times before a spouse can achieve permanent settlement.

There are other changes to family migration rules. A spouse or other family migration applicant now has to wait five years instead of two before permanent settlement is granted. The pre-admission English language ‘test’ has been made more difficult. And the right to appeal against refusal of a family migration visa has now been removed, despite 36 per cent of these appeals being successful in 2011.

Additionally, a little debated change has changed the approach to challenging family migration decisions using Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. Failure to meet the requirements of the family migration rules now effectively excludes an Article Eight claim.

Calculations undertaken by campaign groups show that the income threshold means that 45 per cent of British population cannot now potentially bring in a spouse. Moreover, this change discriminates against women, those in low income jobs or those who live in regions with lower wages. Campaigners against the rule changes have accumulated many testimonies of families torn apart by the rule changes.

Those from all ethnic groups are affected, like ‘S’ who despite having a new job with a  salary of £35,000 could not bring in her Brazilian husband as she had not had her job for a 12 month period.

An inquiry from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration is due to report on the family rule changes on 10 June. But Labour has remained disappointingly silent on this issue. At a time when all political parties stake a claim to being family friendly, it is sad that this sentiment does not extend to migration.