We’re supporting World Food Day, this Sunday 16 October 2016, coordinated by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.

At present, almost 800 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people. About 21,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, about one person every four seconds, most of whom are children.

Climate is changing. Food and agriculture must too
Last year 193 countries pledged to end hunger in the next 15 years. The global goal for achieving Zero Hunger is 2030.

One of the biggest issues related to climate change is food security. The world’s poorest – many of whom are farmers, fishers and pastoralists – are being hit hardest by higher temperatures and an increasing frequency in weather-related disasters.

At the same time, the global population is growing steadily and is expected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. To meet such a heavy demand, agriculture and food systems will need to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and become more resilient, productive and sustainable. This is the only way that we can ensure the wellbeing of ecosystems and rural populations and reduce emissions.

Growing food in a sustainable way means adopting practices that produce more with less in the same area of land and use natural resources wisely. It also means reducing food losses before the final product or retail stage through a number of initiatives including better harvesting, storage, packing, transport, infrastructure, market mechanisms, as well as institutional and legal frameworks.

This is why the global message for World Food Day 2016 is “Climate is changing. Food and agriculture must too.”

More information and what we can do

This brochure has more information about the campaign.
This page has information that can be downloaded about tackling world hunger, including activity books for children.

Everyone has a role to play in mitigating the effects of climate change. Countries need to invest in sustainably increase food production, but there are also a number of actions that we can take to help. Find out more ideas here.

In our latest party political broadcast, Tim Farron speaks about his background, his upbringing and what drives him.

You can watch Tim’s speech at the end of Lib Dem Party Conference here:

Join us here.

Last week was the regular meeting of Bury Council’ Cabinet. A key point on the agenda was Bury Council’s financial outlook, which at present shows the Council heading for a £6.4 million overspend in the current financial year.

This summary actually hides an even more worrying picture, with overspend in various areas totalling over £10.5 million but addressed partially met by savings or other income elsewhere.

The Council has drawn up an ‘Action Plan’ to partially address the issue (recruitment freeze, no new spending, etc etc), but this only amounts to around £1.5 million. The remainder of the overspend would need to be covered by spending the vast majority of the Council’s ‘free reserves’ (roughly £5 million, leaving the council with under £1 million left in ‘free reserves’ at the end of the year.

The point we raised at the meeting was whether the Council was ‘too optimistic’ when it set the budget back in February. Much of the overspend relates to:
– changes in the way services are delivered (e.g. changes are either taking too long to happen, or they are not delivering the savings that were expexted)
– income not as much as expected (for example income from parking, from leisure centres, from comercial rents are all down on budget)
– demand driven areas, such as adult care, or children in care, where costs are expected to be over budget.

The impact of this projected overspend could well be very significant. What it means for the Council is that for next year (2017-18) the starting position is that an extra £6.4 million of cuts will need to be found (it was going to be £11 million, now add £6.4 million to that). We are very worried on the impact this will have on services for residents.

A full copy of the report is here.

Figures obtained by Bury’s Lib Dem councillors have revealed a noticeable increase in the number of reported ‘missed bins’ in the last few years.

The figures identify the number of bins reported as not collected by bin type. This includes instances where it is not the Councils fault such as access problems due to parked cars, snow and floods etc, contaminated bins, bins not out and bins too heavy.

Missed Bins 2013/2014
Grey 2230
Brown 1847
Green 1146 B
lue 799

Missed Bins 2014/2015
Grey 1829
Brown 1262
Green 503
Blue 552

Missed Bins 2015/2016
Grey 2227
Brown 1583
Green 816
Blue 869

Lib Dem Group Leader Councillor Tim Pickstone said:
“Missed bins is one of most frequently reported problems to us as local councillors. The Council does provide additional bags in the event of a missed bin, but people are understandably concerned about their bin being missed when the collections are only every three weeks.”

“There has been a noticeable increase in 2015-16 and we’re hoping that the Council take whatever urgent action needs to be taken get this number down.”

(Photo Bury Times)

Prime Minister Theresa May has announced proposals to bring back more Grammar Schools. Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron explains why he feels that Grammar Schools block rather than aid social mobility:

There are currently only 164 grammar schools left in England but none in Wales or Scotland
I get why grammar schools seem an easy solution. Too many parents are understandably concerned about the standard of education their children are receiving. With school budgets squeezed to breaking point, class sizes growing, teachers feeling overworked and an increasingly narrow curriculum, it is little wonder some parents look for alternatives.

But the answer is not to pick out a few “gifted” children at age 11 while ignoring the needs of many millions more. Instead, we should seek to give every child the excellent education they deserve.

Yes, there are inspiring stories about children from deprived backgrounds thriving in selective schools but overall the picture Conservatives paint of grammar schools as engines of social mobility is not borne out by the facts. Saying, “I went to grammar school and did well” is dodging the issue of what happens to those who don’t get a place and, crucially, how we make sure all children, not just the lucky few, are given the opportunity to “do well”.

What is a grammar school? Why does May want to bring them back?
A child from a poor family trying to get into grammar school faces a challenge similar to a football team playing uphill. By 11 only 75 per cent of the poorest children reach the Government’s expected level compared with 97 per cent of the wealthiest children.

Conservative MP Graham Brady says successful local education authorities tend to contain grammar schools. But selective areas also tend to be richer, which boosts exam results. They also cream off bright children from nearby areas.

It is now so competitive to get into grammar schools in west Kent it has been reported that a third of pupils attended a private prep school first, where children benefit from smaller classes and other advantages. Even where grammar pupils have been to state primaries, those from poorer backgrounds miss out on private coaching for the entrance exams, which is enjoyed by wealthier friends.

Comprehensive schools admit all pupils regardless of their academic ability
Overall, grammars block rather than aid social mobility. I would not try to solve problems in our schools by building entirely new grammars. Where there is money to create more schools – and they are much needed – these should be open to all children, including those from poorer backgrounds.

I want middle-class children to succeed but I want working-class children to have the same chance because it is fundamentally fair and because it makes no economic sense to marginalise huge swathes of the population purely due to the chance of birth.

And then there is the impact on the wellbeing of children themselves. What about those judged not to have shone sufficiently to make it to grammar, courtesy of tests taken aged 11? However unfairly, such children can be made to feel they have failed, with stark consequences for the rest of their lives. Confidence hit, friendships broken and siblings bused vast distances to different schools.

Eleven is very early to decide futures. Studying was not my main interest at that age. I grew up in a terraced house on a busy road in Preston, Lancashire, raised by a single mother. She worked at a check-out but went back to night-school to better herself and eventually became a lecturer. Her success inspired me and showed me how education can be a route to a better life for all.

I went to a comprehensive and I want my children to succeed at their comprehensives. Rather than harking back to grammars and focusing only on those already thriving educationally let’s increase opportunities across society.

While in Government Liberal Democrats introduced free early learning, free school dinners and the pupil premium, giving schools extra cash for children from poor backgrounds. We also introduced an apprenticeship scheme.

These are the measures we should put more money behind – because, unlike more grammar schools, this increases opportunity for all.

This article appeared originally in the Daily Express.