I was intrigued by Gavin Patterson’s reported attack on Ofcom for even raising the question of separating out Openreach. But for the “problems “of the BT pension fund and the block on foreign ownership of its surveillance operations, BT would probably have been broken up by its shareholders long ago. Today its share price is £4.50 (from a nadir of under £1.00 after a peak of £15.00) but a break up could be under way, before Ofcom completes its consultation, if it were to lose badly in the current battle to sign up those who want to watch TV over their smart phones (and Treasury and GCHQ were to remove their objections). Conversely, if BT wins well, it will need a massive rights issue to fund the extra investment in network capacity (EE as well as Openreach) to carry the explosion in mobile (even more than fixed) traffic under way.
The supposed threat to stand still on infrastructure investment because of uncertainty may prove to be a “Ratner gaffe” – especially if HMG reminds others of the availability of guarantees as used to underpin Virgin’s £3 billion spend on upgrades and extensions. A whole new generation of competitors (City Fibre, Gigaclear, ITS etc.) have investor backing to build lower cost, higher speed all-fibre networks to fill the other gaps left by the run down of BT’s 21CN investment programme (after local loop unbundling changed its core business model). They would like BT to provide regional and national backhaul. But others are already stepping into this market too as sector regulators (e.g. for financial services) open up the market by demanding that payment systems (for example) have fall-back facilities over networks that are not critically dependent on each other.
The lack of investment in Openreach over the past decade (compared to period before local loop unbundling or the recent acceleration in infrastructure spend by its competitors) means that BT may lose its monopoly position across much of the UK before it is broken up – unless, of course, it responds positively to those shareholders who want it to lead that process. That leaves open, however, the question as to whether a break up would be good for stimulating competition, let alone investment. I suspect not.
You have until 8th October to help ensure that Ofcom becomes an effective competition regulator, helping re-create a globally competitive UK communications market in which customers (both residential and business) have genuine choice and investors have confidence that the risks they take will not be compounded by political and regulatory uncertainty.
Do not waste that opportunity.
The discussion document for the Ofcom Strategic Review of Digital Communications illustrates just how far thinking about the UK Broadband market has moved on since the consultation over the Digital Communications Infrastructure Strategy was launched during the silly season last year, with almost no publicity. Readers may remember my exercise to overcome that lack of publicity, drum up responses from other than the usual suspects by pointing out what was at stake, organizing a round table of those considering responses and getting these into the public domain because DCMS had no plans to put the responses into the public domain until after it had responded. The full set of responses is now available and I very much hope that Ofcom will be using them as part of its input. It is not, however, obvious from its discussion document.
The document is hard going. Even the executive summary is nearly 20 pages and needs a “Director’s Digest” to bring out the key points. But it has been released before the start of the silly season and the deadline for responses is not until after the end of the last party conference.
I therefore strongly recommend reading it all, pondering the implications and responding accordingly.
I will post separately a copy of my own “dirty digest” to help readers understand the implications of some of the more measured language in the executive summary. I also strongly recommending reading Malcolm Corbett’s excellent paper on why we should “Support the Digital Innovators” and, if you can, attend the INCA meeting on Financing Independent Networks on Wednesday to get a better understanding of what has changed over the past year.
As part of the follow up to my first blog on the effects on Digital Skills of the Spring Budget I have been looking at some of the back up material. I began with “Fixing the Foundations” which contains excellent measures. The main ones include:
- “employer-routed funding reforms, such as the digital apprenticeships voucher, are putting control of funding directly into hands of employers
- apprenticeships will be given equal legal treatment to degrees, to ensure that apprentices and employers can be given confidence in the brand
- the government will abolish employer NICs for almost all apprentices under the age of 25 from April 2016
- the government will set apprenticeship targets for public sector bodies”
It also says, albeit thinking mainly about the FE sector:
“The government wants strong local areas and employers to take a leading role in establishing a post 16 skills system that is responsive to local economic priorities …the government will enable local involvement in the ongoing commissioning of provision, putting power in the hands of people who are best placed to tailor provision to local economic needs”
Then l took look at the “Fixing a broken system: the case for an apprenticeship levy“. This contains some excellent material but can also be seen as defence of formal apprenticeships (using off-the-job, FE-based modules, defined by Industry Training Boards), against the new world of flexible, workplace, on-line distance learning, using skills frameworks agreed by employer-led Sector Skills Councils (now “Partnerships”). It also implies that the use of apprenticeships to train older staff (as opposed to new teenage recruits) in the retail, hospitality and care industries is an “abuse” and not to be copied by others.
I think we need a more profound look at the role of FE in a digital world and look forward to helping publicise some of the initiatives to which I referred in my recent blog on how the “Creative Industries” are working with bottom up college-based consortia.
Finally I took a look at the catchy titled: “The impact of University Degrees on the lifecycle of earnings: some further analysis“. This is used to justify the claim that the Net Present Value of a degree is 170,000 for a man and 264,000 for a woman. I remember the controversy when it was first published. Table 16, Page 54 showed that social studies and arts/design had a negative value while Engineering/Tech had barely any value. Part of the reason was said to do with the methodology. This did not take into account the need for further qualifications (as with Medicine, Law and Accounting) or the way that earnings in design and engineering are affected by apprenticeships (which may be pre- or post- graduate and may, or may not, include a modular degree).
The weakness of the “premium” (alias NPV for the individual) for maths and computing degrees, (100,000 for a man and 243,000 for a woman) is harder to explain, until one looks at the high average unemployment rates among computer science graduates. If fact this masks a range from under 2%, for the ITMB (I need to check whether this is included with Computer Science or Business and Management) to over 50% for some universities and course).
Meanwhile the NPV for a History/Philosophy degree is 557,000 for a man but only 113 for a woman – hence the headline for this blog.
The message for me is the importance of one of the actions in “Fixing the Foundations” :
“The government will improve destination data to enable informed choices. The government is supporting the development of online portals to present all post 16 learning options to young people in a user-friendly way, and is strengthening the provision of destination and earnings data. The new careers and enterprise company will encourage greater collaboration between schools, colleges and employers, helping young people to access the best advice.”
It will be hard enough for the Careers and Enterprise company to achieve its current objectives (which appear focused on FE choices) but we also need to ensure much better advice for those deciding whether to incur 50,000 of debt for an uncertain return or to enter into an apprenticeship contract, perhaps one which includes a modular degree, with a local employer, or one who will provide (or offer help with) accommodation that is a least as good as that they might expect at “Uni”.
The recent tax changes to reduce the cost of employing apprentices deserved an unequivocal welcome . The reintroduction of training levies and grants, albeit confined to apprenticeships, does not. But the devil will be in the detail.
After the repeating the commitment “to significantly increase the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England to 3 million starts this Parliament, putting control in the hands of employers” (Para 1.269) the Budget Report says “This goal will require funding from employers. In recognition of this, the government will introduce a levy on large UK employers to fund the new apprenticeships. This approach will reverse the long term trend of employer underinvestment in training, which has seen the number of employees who attend a training course away from the workplace fall from 141,000 in 1995 to 18,000 in 2014.” Para 1.270)
The UK has a serious problem with under-investment in training but the figures quoted are for “No. of people in employment whose actual hours worked was less than usual hours because of training course (sic) away from the workplace”. Does this mean that the aim of the apprentice levies are to bring about a return to off-site “chalk and talk” and to reverse the rise in supervised and monitored on-line learning at the place of work that has transformed skills acquisition over the past 20 years. Is the aim really to encourage UK employers and training providers to shun the rise of globally recognized technical and professional qualifications and modular degrees, with on-line materials interspersed with webinars, MOOCs and awaydays which do not eat into “usual hours worked”.
One can understand why the Government is seeking means of funding the recommendations of the recent review of the remaining Industry Training Boards but the volume of “off-site” training (or even the time spent using on-line learning material and simulations at the place of work) is not a good proxy for investment in the changing demand for digital skills. The case for the levy was made in a paper by Professor Alison Wolf which makes some excellent points, including about use of the current government supported apprentice programmes by the retail, hospitality and care industries to cut the cost of retraining older workers. But the main cost of a digital apprenticeship is the time of those providing supervised work experience and mentoring. This is rarely measured, let alone reimbursed in Government supported programmes. Cutting the cost of off-site course modules and accreditation will have little effect. If these are to included then the levy required will not be “modest” and could serve to further encourage the outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs. Also is the retraining of older workers to be condemned as an abuse or welcomed?
We need to encourage large private sector employers to train (and not just first entry apprentices) rather than poach from those who do. Nowhere is the problem more serious than with regard to the information security skills crisis, on which I have blogged regularly over the past few years I summarised the wider issues in my evidence to the recent House of Lords Digital skills report – page 1057 (go to the back a scroll forward!), The problems are not new but universal broadband that is fit purpose makes it easier to break out of Groundhog Day and use on-line delivery to help slash the cost and time of workplace trainin. Meanwhile while training contacts (where the law was well summarized thirty years ago in Strathclyde Regional Council v. Neal) remain a more effective means of deterring poaching than levies and grants (“job creation programmes for personnel officers”). Those who use contracts to reinforce loyalty tend not, however, to publicise the fact. Also they do not deter the import of supposedly skilled immigrants or the off-shoring of tasks, including to meet public sector needs, any more than would a levy and grant regime.
If the aim is to encourage those bidding for public sector business to train UK youngsters
, rather than import supposedly skilled graduates from overseas then the Chancellor should improve “guidance” on the use of the Social Values Act to cover the public and systematic weighting of public sector outsourcing procurements in favour of those who take on UK apprentices. There is also a good case for supplementary “apprenticeship levies” on those who recruit off-shore or otherwise export jobs..
On a wider front the Chancellor needs to also address the behavior of Central Government itself – where in-house training appears to have collapsed since the introduction of Civil Service Learning and the termination of all courses that the main contractor cannot provide from its own product line or profitably subcontract. I have blogged on the consequences of this before. It would be wrong to condemn the analysis that led to the recommendation in para 1.271 as one such consequence, but confining apprentice levies to private sector employers would be a mistake. It is therefore hoped that the Government will not only set apprenticeship targets for public sector bodies (para 3.5 of “Fixing the Foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation” published in parallel with the Summer Budget) but will include then in levy and grant systems, including any levies on those who outsource jobs in order to avoid the need to train their own staff.
We can now see the result of last year’s change of policy and leadership at BDUK accompanied by rediscovery by Ofcom to its duties as a competition regulator. Those Counties which held out from pledging everything in support of extending BT’s twenty year-old 21CN infrastructure appear now to be getting rather better offers. Sometimes BT wins the Phase 2 BDUK contracts, as in West Yorkshire or Shropshire. Sometimes Gigaclear wins, as with Gloucestershire . Sometimes the business is split (as in Essex or Berkshire). It will be interesting to see what happens next in Shropshire where the Council is co-operating with INCA on an event to help local businesses look at using the voucher programme to meet their needs. Shropshire is, arguably, one of the most difficult counties to serve using anything other than a mix of satellite and terrestrial radio. I do not therefore envy the council the task it faces in getting value for money – other than from mixing an extension of the current BT network with radical alternatives – perhaps it needs the local equivalent of B4RN (*).
Meanwhile Devon and Somerset has decided on a rematch, having failed to get a sufficiently attractive bid from BT. As with most (but not all) other rural areas, it may not be practical to have a commercially viable service without council money to help prevent social and geographic exclusions – but competition between suppliers for the public funds available, perhaps leading to a mix and match of suppliers and technologies, is more likely to be able to serve ALL residents and businesses, at affordable cost, than the simple extension of a legacy network (likely to be obsolete within the decade as the end-game for IPV4 spreads from the Pacific to the USA and the main Internet players accelerate their transitions to IPV6 accordingly).
At this point the BT response varies. At its best, (when faced by well-advised Councils who are serious about value for money) it produces imaginative new solutions involving a mix of technologies and business models, as in Glasgow (using the infrastructure investment for the wifi for the Commonwealth Games to provide supported access via community centres) or in Cornwall (using wireless and satellite to achieve its targets for cover).
At its worst … you can read Hansard for the complaints about attempts to stop councils from comparing notes (I still do not understand how “commercial in confidence” can be applied to services in receipt of “state aid”) or doing joint deals to get better value for money than any silo-based Whitehall procurement.
Meanwhile when it comes to urban broadband we can see City Fibre, HyperOptic and ITS expanding the number of locations to which they offer true fibre while Manchester is about to benefit from head-to-head competition between Virgin and BT. We should also not that Wimax has shown its potential when everything goes pear-shaped At a recent event on cyber-insurance I asked whether dropping bombs down a manhole cover to set off all the alarms in the area so that you could rob a safety deposit company counted as a cyber-crime. On that note (and the implications for those who are more concerned with reliability and resilience than raw speed) I will stop.
(*) I remind readers that I am not only a shareholder in B4RN but am looking forward to receiving a dividend cheque – much earlier than I expected – although I confess I will probably frame it rather than drink it. I do, however, also declare an interest in the choices available to GigaplusArgyll . I used to be able to download e-mails, albeit very slowly, using the 2G signal from a mast the other side of Loch Scridain. Now thanks to modern bloatware I can barely get the headings before losing the signal. The absence of reliable communications also adds an extra frisson to the organisation of the Isle of Mull Rally
Redeploying welfare funding to support 3 million new apprenticeships was one of David Cameron’s most highly publicized election pledges. We can expect to hear more in the budget this week. Meanwhile every survey of employers’ current and expected problems, for well over a decade, has flagged shortages of digital skills.
That is, however, not strictly true.
There is also a shortage of employers willing and able to work with local schools and colleges to help educate and motivate the next generation (digital natives/millennials), re-motivate the “lost generation” (digital neets) and offer “back into employment opportunities” for the “other half” (including returners with family responsibilities). Every skill in short supply now has a digital component and employers want evolving mixes of skills that do not fit traditional qualifications.
Meeting the objectives set by the Prime Minister, let alone the evolving skills needs of industry, will not be easy but the glass is also half full. We need to publicise, build on and replicate success. Failure to do so risks iniativitis, fragmentation of effort and the replication of that which does not work.
One past success was “Make IT Happy“, the brainchild of Andrew Miller MP when, as Chairman of PITCOM (subsequently transmogrified into PICTFOR) he secured agreement to use its reserves to underpin the launch of a series of competitions to improve links between MPs and the schools in their constituencies. A result was that e-Skills, now the Tech Partnership acquired 25 Parliamentary “Digital Skills Ambassadors”, willing to help support and publicise local schools activities.
The Digital Policy Alliance (which has an MoU with PICTFOR but is not bound by the rules of the All-Party groups) has organized an event on the afternoon of 9th July to help the Tech Partnership recruit new “Skills Ambassadors” to help publicise the full range of activities now available (or planned) to help their voters and their voters’ children and grandchildren to acquire the skills of the future and to help employers (large and small) create the jobs of future in their constituencies
The second objective is to identify those MPs who wish to help ensure that the promises of today are turned into action plans that will produce results by the time they stand for re-election in 2020. My own (third) objective is to encourage MPs to ask employers who complain about skills shortages, what they are doing to help. I would also like to see more MPs publicly praise those who are already helping – particularly those in their own constituencies.
The result should be a set of symbiotic relationships that make the target of 3 million additional apprenticeships by 2020 look not only achievable, but modest. .
The good news is that the time is finally ripe for breaking out of Groundhog Day. The bandwagon has started to roll.
Over 500 employers, large and small, are now supporting existing programmes via the new Tech Partnership (successor to e-Skills) and there is an impressive portfolio of new programmes for launch over the next few months and during the run-up to the party conferences in the Autumn.
In parallel, City and Guilds, the only globally recognised skills brand the UK still possesses, is looking at how to enable employers to embed digital into traditional skills, including to meet the skills needs of the City of London as the world’s main Fintech centre.
Across the UK a growing number of FE Colleges, individually or in bottom-up consortia are working together to re-create community skills hubs, supporting employers who are too small to organise in-house apprentice programmes . Click here for more detail, including links to case studies of success. .
We have a growing number of services to publicise apprenticeship opportunities and/or help employees find suitable (motivation as much as innate aptitude) recruits. Some are focused on organising events to promote what is happening regionally or nationally, such as Apprenticeships4England . Some are embedded in national careers advice services for young people unable or unwilling to incur student debt, such as notgoingtouni. Some are specific to digital, such as wearedotdotdot. Some are geographically specific, such as the Good Careers Guide “brokerage” pilot. Others are embedded in mainstream job search serves such as Total Jobs . We should also include programmes such as “Young Enterprise” and some of the more successful “welfare to work” contractors whose “graduates” are now recruiting apprentices of their own or helping others to do so in areas of extreme shortage, such as information security
There is a wealth of relevant careers and learning material on-line and the regional “grids for learning” (linked nationally via JANET) could enable most schools and libraries to operate as on-line local skills, careers and learning hubs, networked to colleges, schools, universities and education and training providers around the world, not just in the UK.
Most of the main professional bodies and trade associations are looking to provide support for skills programmes and apprenticeships via their local branches and activists. Those serving the digital world range from the umbrella bodies like the British Computer Society to specialist international bodies like ISACA (which bridges the world of audit and information security and has a strong UK chapter).
On the 9th July the aim is to provide succinct introductions for MPs and their research assistants to what is already happening or planned at the national or international level and to the opportunities to support local action to help meet the needs of their voters (and their voters children and grandchildren) and get the jobs and skills the future to their co nstituencies.
We also aim to provide platforms for:
- MPs to publicly support (quotes for press releases etc.) what is already happening or planned in their own constituencies and
- Employers to state what they are doing with their local MPs.
[This blog will be updated at periodic intervals between now and the 9th July]
I strongly recommend reading the contributions made during the debate on Superfast Broadband on Wednesday 24th June. 26 MP were named as down to speak. I have counted contributions from over 30, including all of those to whom I sent links to my previous posting.
I will not try to summarise all the points made but three main themes seem to emerge:
1) Overall BT is delivering more and faster than contracted but local performance varies and appears proportional to the determination of the local Council to get value from its contribution. Those which not only publicise who is to be served and publicly monitor and report performance, but help promote take-up as soon as areas go live, get much better service. Actively promoting take-up delivers a win:win.BT commonly increases its investment as revenues begin to come in – and is also liable to give a pay back that the Council can use for those hardest to reach.
2) The approach of encouraging BT to extend its legacy 21CN network, beginning with those who are easiest to serve, has deepened geographic and social divides, making it harder to serve “not spots”, including those area which are “descoped” when they prove harder to serve than expected. The next phase of funding should copy the Gloucester approach where the council has listed the properties to be served and Gigaclear consequently won the contract in a head to head competition with BT.
3) It is impractical and immoral for Government to penalise taxpayers and benefits claimants for not submitting returns and claims on-line when they do not have reliable access, either at home or via a local community centre or library, particularly during the evenings or at week-ends when most small firms and self-employed do their paperwork.
I spent yesterday at the Digital Leaders conference, addressed by Ed Vaizey and Matt Hancock. I spent part of the time with some of those organising services for residents of social housing. The problems faced by those they are seeking to help, because of the lack of affordable and reliable access to services that are fit to use, was a major issue. The personal benefits to be gained and public sector savings to be made from providing fibre to the home (or the “7 – 11 library or community centre supported drop in centre”) are obvious.
There was a common call, among the “Digital leaders” for a responsible Minister in the Cabinet. I thought back to when Kenneth Baker became Minister for IT (I was the dissenting voice in the policy troika referred to by Adrian Norman in the blog to which this links). Government policy for its own use of IT became fragmented as the departmental silos fought back. CCTA (which had co-ordinated policy) was emasculated – with teh results we have seen since. I was not around myself when Alexander Pope wrote “For forms of government let fools contest …”. (or for John Adams counter-attack) but subsequent history shows that John Adams was an optimist.
I think we are more likely to get progress if the 30 of so MPs who spoke in the debate on Wednesday form into hunting packs and demand quarterly progress reviews, via joined up Select Committee Enquiries and coerce the Silos of State into taking seriously the need for co-operation across departmental boundaries – perhaps even organising shared training programmes to provide Civil Servants with the skills to plan, organise and monitor the delivery of joined-up policies and services that are fit for purpose.
The summary produced to help MPs contributing to the Westminster Hall debate on Superfast Broadband roll-out helps explain why debate is so confused and bitter. The Librarians of the House of Commons preface a summary of the official sources (particularly the Ofcom “European Scorecard”) with links to recent articles which call in question the methodologies used in those sources.
Those who say that the UK is lagging behind commonly quote the services available across Scandinavia, the Netherlands, parts of Eastern Europe and the tiger economies of the Far East. The Ofcom Scorecard compares our performance with France, Germany, Italy and Spain – where the incumbent operators are doing no better than their UK equivalent – BT. Those in the lead have competitive markets with varying mixes of private sector and community (including municipal) enterprise.providing more modern local services.
Then there is the measurement of speed – beginning with the meaning of 2Mbs. Is this a guarantee of 2 Mbs minimum speed or a circuit rated at “up to 2Mbs”: i.e. a supposed average of 2Mbs over the course of 24hours: faster when no-one else in the neighbourhood is on-line but slower, sometimes below 50kbs, during peak periods. Given that “up to 8Mbs” may well deliver well below 2Mbs during peak periods we can see why DEFRA would probably have had to abandon the on-line Farm Payments system, even if the system had been otherwise fit for purpose.
Page 16 onwards of the summary produced by the House of Commons library quotes Ofcom data indicating a 21% increase in average speed over the past year but this is for urban areas served by fibre services but suburban and rural areas have seen little or no change. The Ofcom release only quotes variations around the average for a few high speed services(e.g 96% of those receiving the Sky “up to 38 Mbps” service receive at least 90% of their maximum speed at peak times while only 7% of EE customers do so). I have been told (by sources other than Ofcom) that the omission is because the service used does not work reliably at lower speeds, such as the “up to 8 Mbps” common in rural areas.
I hope that the debate will focus on the present and the future, not who is to blame for the past, because the world has moved on since Rory Stewart fired the starting gun for the Great Rural Broadband race, in Reghed in 2010. At one end of the spectrum, the local community champion B4RN now provides fibre to over 1,000 premises, is in the process of launching subsidiaries to serve additional communities, and is about to pay its first dividend (albeit I will probably frame my cheque rather than cash it). At the other end HM Treasury has agreed to underwrite 3 bIllion of investment to enable Virgin to restart its roll-out to cover those areas abandoned when Telewest and NTL went all but broke. We can argue whether national progress would have been faster had DCMS officials not insisted on providing “guidance” to local authorities and hired consultants who understood neither telecoms nor state aid rules, while BT focused on delivering the infrastructure for the Olympics instead of the rest of the UK. [P.S. Wapping still appears stuck with 8 Mbs]
The roll out is now accelerating as BT discovers that it cannot sell its sports content to those served only by long lines of crapband (Copper, Rust, Aluminium and other Pollutants from the cabinet to the home). Meanwhile previously docile local authorities are considering whether to produce guidance on how to copy those who have done deals with its competitors (from Cities like York and Peterborough.to counties like Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire ) in order to prevent the jobs of the future migrating elsewhere.
Meanwhile the new team at Ofcom looks set to restore its role, as a competition regulator, using realistic measures of price, performance and behaviour instead of playing regulatory games over cost of capital and return on investments, with all-too-predictable results.
I therefore hope that the debate will focus on what is happening now needs to happen now and that the Minister’s response will cover not just how to get better value from the state aid to BT, but what is being done to encourage fund managers to invest in British Broadband infrastructures (to collectively form an ubiquitous, reliable, resilient, inter-operable fixed and mobile mesh) that is fit for the future – and not follow the shareholders of O2 and EE in selling out to put their funds elsewhere.
It may be that he cannot comment (in advance of the budget) on how the next phase of state aid will used, but I hope that he will be able to reassure those who voted for his new Secretary of State (MP for Malden) and his ministerial colleagues with even less well served seats (from West Dorset to Westminster), as well as new Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee (MP for Shoreditch), of the DCMS Select Committee (MP for Herefordshire) and of the DEFRA Select Committee that genuine progress is being made, not just in the Northern Power House (with bandwidth hungry players moving from Soho and Shoreditch to Manchester), even if the Chancellor intends to take most of the credit.
All roads round Runnymede will be closed on 15th June as the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Master of the Rolls commemorate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta at Runnymede. Sunday Worship on BBC4 on 14th came from Odiham, whence King John had set out to meet his Barons. It featured a splendid address from The Master of the Temple where the Barons, including 7 Bishops, had plotted their tactics). He reminded us of the background, particularly the role of Stephen Langton, (the Archbishop King John never wanted). Langton believed that laws came from God, not the King. He not only helped with the drafting, he arranged for Magna Carta and the more significant revised versions under Henry III, to be copied and “published” across the Kingdom via the Church – to prevent the Monarch/State from backtracking. Today some would argue that the occupants of Buckingham and St James‘s palaces have joined those of Lambeth Palace among the defenders of civil liberties against threats from those who now occupy the site of the Palace of Whitehall and their allies and accomplices in the Palace of Westminster.
I have blogged in the past on the tension between those who believe that the laws come from God and those who believe in the divine right of the State including with regard to identity policy Those who rabbit on about trust and identity in on the on-line world might do well to remember that the main Western world’s main service for checking identities, the Notaries, until recently reported to God, via the Archbishop of Canterbury (in Common Law Countries) and the Pope (in Roman law Countries). For high level global trade the Scriveners provide the underpinning, (e.g which version of which e-mail, between whom and in which language was the contract) for the services provided via operations like Lloyds Register and DNV, Meanwhile surveys as to who is trusted with our identities and personal information in on-line world show that on-line retailers and internet service providers have “earned” approximately the same level of trust as journalists and politicians. They come below government (central or local) and well below the banks.
When Sir Tim Berners Lee, the Stephen Langton of the Internet, received the freedom of the City of London his address to the Common Council on the role of the City in creating and preserving the rule of law instead of the state led through to the potential role of London in the on-line world. His calls for a global on-line On-line Bills of Rights have been well covered by others. I would, however, argue that it is not only impossible to achieve in practice, but a red herring. We need “merely” to apply the same law on-line as off-line.
That does, however, require abiding by the spirit, not just the letter, of Magna Carta. That means looking at the theological basis of what Stephen Langton was trying to achieve. We also need to remember that the current threats to civil liberties are very similar to those that led up to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. James II had lost the popularity he had won by taking charge of the efforts to put out the Great Fire (blamed at the time of the terrorists of the day) and had put down the original London-wide Penny Post (supposedly used for scandalous letters between lovers as well as for business), because his men could not steam open the letters.
In a modern secular society I doubt that most of the population would be happy with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the prime guardian of Civil Liberties against the state, but the fourth key player in the celebrations at Runnymede is the Master of the Rolls, the third most senior Judge in Britain. Past readers will have noted that I have called in the past for the oversight of privacy and surveillance in the UK to be properly resourced and report via the Master of the Rolls, That leaves open the question as to whom the Master should be responsible (other than God). At the end of the final discussion paper of the 2003 -5 EURIM – IPPR study into Partnership Policing for the Information Society , I tentatively suggested that the ultimate oversight for the policing should be a committee of both House of Parliament.
The Home Secretary’s statement to parliament on David Anderson’s report into the practical working of the UK’s surveillance law, published a week before the Magna Carta celebrations, should be the starting gun for an open and constructive debate. The overall objective should be to better reconcile the protection of the public from fear and abuse (whether from on-line stalkers or those planning terrorism) with the protection of “peaceful dissidents” and whistle-blowers from action supposedly designed to address organised crime or threats to society as a whole. We should also remember that most of the public wants more, not less surveillance (including for the reasons well-illustrated in the current Channel 5, Caught on Camera, series).
The arguments should not, therefore be less about the degree of surveillance that is reasonable or acceptable. They should be more about the accountability of those organising it or demanding access to the results.
We should also remember Archbishop Langton’s mistrust of the draftsmen in the royal chancery, without which Magna Carta would probably not have been drafted, let alone distributed (by the Church not the Sheriffs) and thus remembered.
Those who understand how modern legislation is negotiated, drafted and implemented might reflect how little has changed in 800 years.
I read Warwick Ashford’s article on the Drivers and Inhibitors of Cyber Security Evolution after attending a number of thought provoking meetings during the week of Infosec. The study he quotes should be juxtaposed with an excellent Washington Post “history” of how the Internet became so insecure and with Warwick’s more recent article on how co-operation is driving the fight against e-Crime. Comments by Adrian Leppard, also covered by Warwick, a couple of weeks ago help put these into current context.
The overall cost of computer-assisted fraud (about the same as the current UK fiscal deficit) is causing HM Treasury to take a cool look at the competition between those bidding for funding to address cyber-warfare, anti-terrorism, internet “safety” and e-crime. Meanwhile a number of cyber-risks have become almost uninsurable – but main boards have yet to appreciate the consequences of the deletion of “cyber” from their mainstream business continuity cover. Instead we have the growth of policies to cover the cost of implementing incident response plans which include action (cross-border as necessary) to identify who organised the attack (and who aided and abetted them) so as to mount “asset recovery” exercises (under a mix of criminal and civil law) in parallel with damage limitation exercises (including to protect customers who data may have been compromised). Those incident response plans include retainers with cross-cutting teams drawn from the accounting, law, forensic, security and public affairs practices who are making recruitment firms rich as they compete the expertise they will need. A deliberate “side-effect” of such policies is that those with them are less likely to be attacked because of the known threat of retaliation.
That which was forecast a decade ago (see the EURIM-IPPR studies into Partnership Policing for the Information Society) is therefore finally coming to pass, as the government, law enforcement and industry finally come to appreciate that they need to be at least as good at partnership as organised crime. They should, however, have the advantage that the lack of trust between criminals is even greater than that between the agencies of law enforcement and security and the various cultural and professional tribes of “industry”.
Time has moved on since the EURIM-IPPR study. Some of the findings need updating but some of the most important do not. Law enforcement has not, and never will have, the resources (quality and quantity) to do more than a fraction of what is necessary. The need is for much better frameworks for co-operation with those in industry who do have these.
In looking at forthcoming legislation to update current law on surveillance powers and access to communications data we should give priority to governance structures for voluntary co-operation, under evolving mixtures of civil and criminal law, including internationally. We might also take a good look at legislation and regulation which limits the civil liability of those who fail to take “reasonable” action to protect their customers from abuse. The background work for the DPA exercise on Age Verification indicates that what is ‘reasonable” depends on the perspective of the viewer and also changes over time. It is therefore important that debate is as public and open as practical. Those how say it is too complicated for voters to understand should be trusted as much (or as little) as those who say it is too secret to be openly discussed in public.
The election of a Government with a working majority, however modest, reduces the pressure for narrow nationalism when it comes to skills policy but we should take good note of the difference between promises and reality and the pressure from voters to bridge the gap. A recurrent theme during the election was the need to address the pressures on housing, schools, the NHS and wages from “uncontrolled immigration”. This was close coupled to pressures to better educate and train British workers rather than import supposedly skilled staff from overseas, whether from Eastern Europe or Asia. The Prime Minister began his post election speeches and letter of thanks to supporters with the promise of 3 million new apprenticeships by 2020. In the Queen’s Speech the Government adopted the Labour pledge to make it an offence for businesses and recruitment agencies to hire from abroad without advertising in the UK and announced plans for higher visa charges for supposedly skilled workers.
Those who wish to continue to be able to attract and retain world class talent, so that they can offer globally competitive services from UK-based hubs, should be looking at how to help achieve those objectives in ways that also meet their own needs to improve quality and reduce vulnerability to insider fraud and abuse. They risk yet more bureaucratic controls which will continue to fail to address the known problems, if they just bleat about cost. They should, instead, be seen to be helping improve the quality of their existing workforce and of potential local recruits, by co-operating with those seeking to improve the relevance of our fragmented and sclerotic (albeit with pockets of excellence) vocational education and training system. That co-operation should include helping to publicise, promote and expand that which helps meet their own needs.
Somewhere over 200,000 employers already take on apprentices but last year there were over ten times as many applicants as opportunities. For all its talk of future skills needs the ICT sector was in the forefront of neither demand nor supply and does not appear to feature prominently in the mainstream promotion of apprenticeships. And it is not just the private sector that appears to give preference to immigrants. Local Authorities have come under flak for taking a lead in advertising jobs on pan-EU on-line services but not making serious efforts via local newspapers and recruitment agencies. Meanwhile NHS trusts are accused of prefering to send teams to trawl the Far East for Nurses and Care Staff rather than open up routines for returners and mature entrants to be employed locally on flexible contracts.
Narrowing the issues to ICT skills, the Tech Partnership (formerly e-Skills) has some excellent programmes to encourage and support employers who take on apprentices and trainees of all ages but has limited funds to advertise and promote these. The lack of support for promotion helps avoid the need for rationing. But it is not in the best national interest, if the objective is to tackle skills shortages – not merely to be able to announce successful pilots. Meanwhile, those who bleat about ICT skills shortages and have not yet joined the Tech Partnership and started working with their peers to organise programmes to address those shortages, have only themselves to blame. Like many other players, it can only achieve what its participants resource it to achieve. So join and put up – or shut up.
Similarly, pressures from major employers to make it easier to import supposedly skilled staff are irresponsible, unless accompanied by realistic proposals to address long standing quality problems, akin to those which equally plagued the NHS and are finally beginning to attract serious publicity. The issues of fraudulent documentation with regard to those with supposed IT skills was illustrated (but subsequently well covered up) when the escort failed to arrive to collect five illiterate, but according to their documentation highly qualified, systems analysts at Heathrow. It should also be noted that a large proportion of the rising tide of e-Crime, including impersonation can be linked directly to the sale of personal information from overseas call centres and information handling operations (many in locations with no computer misuse or data protection legislation, to back up outsourcing contracts with security and privacy clauses worth the paper they are not printed on).
However, not all supposed abuses are evidence of malpractice.
The claim that the system is failing and being abused because barely 25% of apprenticeships go to those aged under 19, even though they make up half of all applicants and that those aged over 25 fill 37% of programmes could be seen as evidence that enlightened employers are using higher level apprenticeships to address the backlog of skills among their current workforce. The Tech Partnership Programmes to meet half the cost of modular training for existing employees are an example of one of the best of such programmes. Another welcome development is the way that some recruitment agencies are exploring commercially viable ways of providing mature and well motivated staff with the skills in current demand from their clients and/or helping clients provide cross-training for users with the aptitudes, attitudes and experience required to avoid relying on outsiders for major projects or those information security roles that need individuals of known provenance and loyalty.
Finally we should remember that “freedom of movement” within the EU is freedom to take up a job offer, not to live off a more favourable benefits regime while looking for work. The growing groundswell against immigration implies that the UK public sector will soon give priority to taking on trainees from the local unemployed or to reskilling existing employees rather than advertising for skilled staff in other member states. There is no need for treaty change, only a need to use the Social Values Act (which embeds up-to-date EU thinking on “intelligent procurement” to ensure that this is actively taken into account when drawing up and adjudicating invitations to tender.
The industry response to such pressures will separate those who wish to maintain global career paths from those who merely wish to import cheaper contractors.
I therefore much prefer the slogans “Help train British workers for Global Jobs” or “Help make Britain the Training Hub for the Digital World” to “Train English Workers for English Jobs”. I fear , however,that unless we are serious about the former, we will get the latter.
I am particularly concerned about the way the UK funding councils hamstring those in receipt of their funds, mandating outdated business models based on the development of competing qualifications and materials from which royalties can be recouped. We need, instead, to encourage them to participate in the various global consortia which are transforming the acquisition of digital learning and skills at all levels, from University organised MOOCs (plus high-added value residential modules) to Supplier Funded Virtual Academies (and their local delivery partners) and cross-cutting Corporate Virtual Universities (plus networks of local workplace and/or “open” learning centres).
I also very concerned over the provision of digital careers advice. Most is at best misleading and at worst counter-productive: driving away those we need while attracting those for whom we have limited need. Hence the reason “The IT Crowd” live in the basement.
I could bore for Britain on IT Skills issues but the core question is, perhaps, not “How do we break out of Groundhog Day?” but “Who really wants to break out of Groundhog Day?”.