Having spent 2 1/2 years on a project which looks at the barriers to influencing policy this proposal worries me that smaller organisations will be faced with yet another heardle to lobbying the Government especially as there will be a registration fee imposed. The purpose of this register would be to create transparency but I do wonder if it is just another layer of bureaucracy which groups would need to overcome before having their voice heard.

What are your thoughts about this – have your say at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Introducing%20a%20Statutory%20Register%20of%20Lobbyists.pdf by 13th April.

Every day new people join Twitter so this list will no doubt grow and change. Have I got it right? Who have I missed? Tell me in the comments section below or through Twitter at @VONNEnews.

This list was printed in our special edition magazine ‘The VINE‘ which looks at The State of the North East 2012.  Members of VONNE receive a free copy or you can download it.

Third Sector

• Big Lottery Fund North East @BIGNorthEast
• Catalyst Stockton @Catalyst2010
• Children North East @ChildrenNE
• National Energy Action @NEA_UKCharity
• Newcastle CVS @newcastlecvs
• Northern TUC @northerntuc
• St Oswalds Hospice @stoswaldsuk
• The Cyrenians @thecyrenians

Journalists

• Adrian Pearson, Regional Affairs, The Journal @adrian_pearson
• Brian Aitken, Editor, The Journal @brianjnled
• Gerry Foley, Political Correspondent for ITV Tyne Tees @ITVFOLEY
• Kenny Toal, ITV Tyne Tees News @kennytoalitv
• Peter Barron, Editor Northern Echo @EchoPeterBarron
• Richard Moss, BBC Politics Show @BBCRichardMoss
• Sharon Barbour, BBC Look North @sharonbarbour
• William Green, Politics Editor, The Journal @politicseditor

Politics

• Alex Cunningham, MP for Stockton North @ACunninghamMP
• Bridget Phillipson, MP for Houghton & Sunderland South @bphillipsonMP
• Catherine McKinnell, MP for Newcastle North & Shadow Minister for Children & Young Families @CatMcKinnellMP
• Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle Central & Shadow Minster for Innovation & Science @ChiOnwurah
• David Miliband, MP for South Shields @DMiliband
• Grahame Morris, MP for Easington County Durham @grahamemorris
• Guy Opperman,  MP for Hexham @GuyOppermanMP
• Helen Goodman, MP for Bishop Auckland and Shadow Media Minister @HelenGoodmanMP
• Jenny Chapman, MP For Darlington @JennyChapman
• Nick Forbes, Leader of Newcastle City Council @NCC_Leader @nick_forbes
• Pat Glass, MP for North West Durham, @PatGlassMP
• Roberta Blackman-Woods MP for Durham City and Shadow Minister for Planning @robertabw
• Tom Blenkinsop MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland @TomBlenkinsop
• Pat Glass, MP for North West Durham @PatGlassMP

Policy Influencers

• Balance North East, North East Alcohol Office @BalanceNE
• Ed Cox, IPPR North @edcox_ippr
• James Ramsbotham, North East Chamber of Commerce @NECCTwiTer
• Jeremy Cripps, Chief Executive Children North East @jeremycripps
• Neil Foster, Trade unionist and political campaigner @neilrfoster
• North East Child Poverty Commission @nechildpoverty
• Public Health Intelligence North East @PHINEonline
• Rob Williamson, Chief Executive, Community Foundation Tyne & Wear and Northumberland @RobCFTyne
• Ross Smith, Head of Policy and Research at NECC @Ross_Smith_NECC

The Newspaper Licensing Association is the body that raises £26m a year in copyright fees of which about £1.3m comes from charities.  The NLA is owned by the UK’s eight major newspaper groups (Associated Newspapers, Financial Times, Guardian Media Group, Independent News and Media, Northern and Shell, News International, Daily Telegraph and Trinity Mirror). The NLA’s running costs account for about a quarter of all that is raised, and the rest is distributed between 1,400 newspapers.  Charities already pay a licensing fee to the NLA for sharing printed news content i.e. photocopies or printouts of newspaper articles.

They have a counter-argument to CharityComms attack which is presented in the Guardian saying a free licence for charities is “unrealistic and unfair”. I don’t agree with their assertion that they are providing a useful service with monitoring tools, as this is a service they charge for.  I have some sympathy for wanting to raise some revenue for newspapers as many are struggling in this new digital age.

However I don’t agree with charging charities for sharing digital content with their supporters, for the same reasons that Vicky Browning, Director of CharityComms has given:

• Charities are paying to get their own coverage back.
• Charities’ coverage is mainly local, but the NLA forces them to pay for national licences.
• Media licensing is not cheap. CharityComms research shows that it typically costs £1 for every article copied, and the largest charities are paying over £10,000 for media licensing. There is a charity discount, but this fixed at £158 no matter how big the fee.
• Why should charities pay when individuals can circulate articles freely?

I have an additional reason though. In 2009 I was contacted by a VONNE member who was pursued for payment by the NLA with daily emails and phonecalls demanding payment for photocopying newspaper articles and threatened with prosecution.  We shared this cautionary tale with other members, some who shared this experience and had thought it was a hoax agency such was their approach.

If you agree with CharityComms on the unfairness of this fee you can add your support in the following ways:

“email vicky@charitycomms.org.uk, and share your views and experiences in the comments section of The Guardian article, below this post and on our Facebook page. We’ve also had coverage in PR Week and Third Sector, so feel free to comment on those stories too. You can also share on Twitter using #copyrightfees.”

The discussion started promising as the results from the GP research was shared; 26 out of the 31 respondents said they believed the VCS does have a role to play however this was short lived when you start to examine this further. There are 200 GP’s in Newcastle and in reality those who took the time to complete the survey are those who are more likely to be engaged with the sector, if all 200 GP’s had completed it the balance would most definetely shift.

Each participant had a lot of tales and ideas to share and the more we talked the bigger the challenges looked. There seemed to be a theme that when organisations work with GP’s the work gets to a certain point and the momentum is lost. Lin from CAOH has a hard task in front of her to be able to produce a report from these sessions and produce some recommendations.

If you work in Newcastle and have missed these events there is still a chance to have your input by completing this survey at  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/nhsreformvcs by Friday 3rd February.

If you need the survey in an alternative format please do not hesitate to contact Lin@caoh.org.uk as a few of us in the room learnt yesterday that many people who are deaf leave school with a reading age of 9 and require information translating into BSL.

This project is one of the policy topics funded through the Policy and Representation Partnership; you can find out about the 5 others at http://www.vonne.org.uk/policy/partnership/policytopics/?flink=800

The official reason for this u-turn reflects “the need to align local Healthwatch closer to the establishment of other new bodies such as the Health and Wellbeing Boards”.

Unofficially, I’d suggest that most Local Authorities were a million miles away from where they needed to be.  And you can understand why.  Confusion from the Department of Health on the relationship between LINks and new Local HealthWatch, no money for the 75 Pathfinders announced earlier this year, and a delay in the set up of HealthWatch England, the body charged with providing leadership and support to Local Healthwatch organisations.

It’s good news that the three North East Pathfinders are finally going to receive some funding– but it’s disappointing that they’ve had to wait five months since the announcement in summer that they had Pathfinder status.

This new timetable gives local areas real space to innovate, collaborate and design a local HealthWatch that maximises involvement and ensures the voices of the public and patients really shape how local health services are run.  Let’s hope we use the time wisely.

Where to start?  I’m in favour of many of the central themes of Big Society: the shift of power from Whitehall to Town Hall, enabling a wider group of people to play an active role in their local community, support for social enterprises and cooperatives.  All fine by me.  I just fail to see how the Government’s current plans add value to what was already in place.

In the North East we’ve seen millions of pounds wiped from budgets targeting grass roots activity in health, regeneration, wellbeing, sport, leisure, and community networks.  And early outcomes from the Work Programme, championed by the Government as the Big Society in Action, appear to display all of the hallmarks of Top-Down Big Government.

Interestingly, the day before my visit to Sunderland, the Government’s Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) concluded its enquiry on the Big Society.  Its findings make uncomfortable reading for the coalition:

• The Big Society is hampered by the lack of a clear implementation plan, leading to public confusion about the polity agenda;
• Government must address the barriers charities and voluntary groups experience in the contracting and commissioning system;
• There should be greater clarity on the roles of charitable, private and public providers of public services.

We had quite a lot to discuss really!

Speaking with the students over coffee, it was inspiring to hear about their volunteering, their passion for health and social care and their hopes for the future.  It’s a great course, and as responsibility for public health moves from the NHS to Local Government, one that should go from strength to strength.

It’s an issue that affects us all – we all know someone who has needed a bit extra care or support to continue to lead a full and active life.  From aids and adaptations in our homes, to more complex packages of care, receiving the right support, when you need it, can make life worth living.  And when we get it wrong, the consequences can be tragic.

There are so many reasons why the way we provide care and support has to change.  Yes, it’s true that society is changing – within 20 years the number of 85s will double, and the number of people living with life-long disabilities is likely to grow true.  The funding models we use today simply won’t cope with the increased need.

But, more fundamentally, it’s because we all have to work harder, together, to provide high quality personalised services, based on individual choice.  And we need to make sure that the most vulnerable, who need care and support services the most are protected.

Well, the closing date for feedback was today – so sorry if I’ve got you fired up and ready to respond.  If you’d like to read more about the issues that the community and voluntary sector have raised, you can read submissions from VONNE, NETS(work) and Regional Voices on our website.

Let me know what you think.  Did my response on behalf of VONNE highlight the key issues?  What did I miss?

And if you are still berating yourself for not responding; I’m sure there’ll be another chance soon.  The Government will be publishing its White Paper in spring 2012, and much as I’d like to dream we’d get it right first time – I’m sensing a future “engagement opportunity”.

So I just want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has worked with me along my 6 and a half year journey at VONNE.  Its been an amazing learning experience and I have met some wonderful people.

I am taking away lots of happy memories and great friends.  I hope to cross paths with most of you in my next adventure. If you want to work with me in the future you can contact me on all the usual social media formats (fb, twitter, linkedin etc).

Au revoir!