text:
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 12:00 pm on 19th June 2012.
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Free Representation Unit, Public Concern at Work and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Perhaps I could ask the witnesses to identify themselves for the record and to indicate whether there are any aspects of the Bill on which you would prefer not to answer questions or on which you have areas of specialism.
Edward Sweeney: Good afternoon. My name is Ed Sweeney. I am the chair of ACAS. Areas of concern and interest for us would be the process of early conciliation, so I would be happy to answer questions on that, on how it might look and on how we have been modelling it so far, and I will deal with any substantial questions from that.
Cathy James: Good afternoon. I am Cathy James. I am the chief executive of Public Concern at Work, so I am obviously very interested in clause 14 which inserts a public interest test into the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. That would be the area in which I have most expertise, and I will have limited input on other areas of the Bill.
Mike Emmott: I am Mike Emmott. I am an employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. My special interests are employment law and employee relations, so I will be focusing, if I may, on the part of the Bill that deals particularly with employment regulation. I would be happy to comment on whistleblowing if anybody is interested in my opinion on that.
What came out loud and clear in this morning's session was, I think everybody agrees, about the merits of early conciliation. There are, however, real concerns about whether ACAS is adequately resourced to deal with that, and I would like to hear comments from all members of the panel. Mr Sweeney, in the submission pack you state:
"We are currently discussing with BIS the extra resources we might need to operate the new service but we are confident that BIS will ensure that we are adequately resourced to take on the task."
Is that not a bit naive?
Edward Sweeney: If we are not, you will be the first to hear about it. As an independent and impartial organisation, we have had a good relationship with BIS. It has been a sensible discussion, but we realised that there were constraints. We have been asked to do something, and we will try and make the thing fit as best we possibly can. I am confident, however, given the conversations that we have had so far and provided that we get the modelling right and deal with some of the other factors in the Bill, that we can probably make early conciliation work.
What do other members of the panel think?
Cathy James: The resourcing issue is obviously really important, and as a small organisation that deals with whistleblowers, we understand that strains that can come across an organisation when calls rise. When economic times become difficult, employment disputes become more difficult to deal with and resources will be really important. Yes, I agree.
Michael Reed: Everyone who you talk to will always agree that early conciliation is in everybody's best interests, because it can offer much better solutions for employers and employees, and it can be cheaper. The danger is often that it is seen as a panacea and, in particular, as a way of saving a great deal of money. It can save money, but it also needs adequate resource, without which there is a real danger that it just lengthens and makes more difficult the whole process and has a counter-productive effect that is the opposite of what people want. We have seen that historically with the previous statutory dispute resolution procedure. In this process, what is being proposed looks better, and as long as ACAS is adequately resourced, it is a good thing, but there is an "if".
Mike Emmott: I agree with that. ACAS conciliation undoubtedly saves money. The worries about funding probably reflect a history of years in which ACAS has been a bit short-changed on resource, partly because of worries in parts of the Government about how it was using its resource. Now that ACAS has this high-profile job and the cost of its not doing it is so obvious in relation to employment tribunal claims and so on, the Government cannot afford to leave themselves open to criticisms that they will not resource their chosen tool.
Mr Sweeney, I do not want you to play your hand in public too much.
I was going to ask about that. Do you need extra money to be able to carry out the task in the Bill?
Edward Sweeney: I think we need some extra money—the big question is, how much? We do not know yet. It depends on the number of cases that we have and the economic circumstances. I know that this morning some figures were mentioned on what sort of money we have asked for. Publicly or privately, we have asked for no money yet. We have been looking at the situation and discussing what it might look like with our colleagues in BIS.
Edward, mediation seems to work well. Your stats are good—congratulations. You have 75% resolution of cases that your organisation mediates. Why cannot other organisations get involved with mediation? There are many small companies out there that are very good firms. Why can they not be involved?
Edward Sweeney: Probably the best way of looking at it is, "Here's one you made earlier." We have a long reputation in relation to mediation and conciliation. We have been around a long time, with antecedents going back to the 1890s in real terms. That reputation for impartiality and independence is hard won and hard defended. I would have some concerns about whether outside organisations—third parties—could command that sort of impartiality and independence. The question would be, how would it be paid for? At the moment, the taxpayer pays for ACAS, and the simple fact is that it is good value for money.
What is your view on claimants having to give ACAS permission before you contact their employer?
Edward Sweeney: If you are dealing with a conciliation of any type, whether an individual or a collective one, you have to have the agreement of the party to approach the other party. If that party says, "I don't want you talking to my employer," or "I don't want you talking to my employee," conciliation will simply not work. It is a process of two parties coming together that need to feel trust.
Surely, there are two sides to a story. Sometimes, there must be vexatious or daft claims, and a quick call from ACAS to the employer to check them out would clarify the situation quite easily.
Edward Sweeney: That may be possible, but if we do that, the risk to our reputation is tremendous. People might say, "We put our faith and trust in ACAS, and you broke that trust." It does not take much for those sorts of stories to start to permeate around the workplace.
We have considerable experience of handling such situations, and the best way to deal with them is to say to the party, "Look, we're going to contact your employer to seek where we are," or "We are going to contact your employee," because it can be either way, "Are you comfortable with that?" If the answer is yes, we are at least half way to making the approach and finding a sensible solution. If you simply cold call one of the parties, the reaction from either side may be quite difficult for the parties to deal with later, when we are no longer there.
Cathy, you know that people have been making out like bandits with the whistleblower situation. It is a sensible reform—huge amounts of money are spent by companies to settle cases—so what is the problem with it?
So you would agree that people have been making a lot of money out of it?
Cathy James: I do not think that people have been making a lot of money. When we assess the cases that come through the employment tribunal, 10% of the final cases that go through to a hearing have a private employment dispute at their heart. So it is not that every single case being fought in the employment tribunal is ending up with a private employment dispute at all, but the perception is—I think that this will become stronger as the period of time that you have for bringing a normal unfair dismissal claim is extended from one to two years—that you have no other rights and therefore throw in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Certainly, anecdotally, that is what we have heard. But our primary issue here is that the law is straining with all sorts of other gaps and loopholes. There is an issue around vicarious liability. There is an issue around the workers who are covered by the legislation—the original intention of the Act to cover student nurses, student doctors. Perhaps non-executive directors should be more clearly covered in the whistleblowing legislation. That would help with financial accountability in the financial sector and in boards—talking about the discussion just now. So there are a lot of areas where the law needs further consideration and that is our primary issue. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but in addition to a number of other issues around the protection.
So you accept that it has been abused reasonably heavily?
Cathy James: No, I do not accept that it has been abused heavily. I do not accept that at all. I think the perception among lawyers, and they are the people who end up with the difficult case on their desk, is that you throw it in. So, among claimant lawyers, you throw it in perhaps. But I do not think it is played out in the employment tribunal process that everybody is being successful in bringing these types of claims, or that it is being abused to the extent that perhaps the perception is that that is the case. But that does not mean that we do not think it needs to be looked at, but it needs to be looked at in the balance, looking perhaps at the issue of good faith and the motive of the whistleblower. Could that be a countervailing issue that could be taken away from the legislation to justify having a public interest test in the legislation?
Can I go back to the ACAS early conciliation points again, Mr Sweeney? Given some of ACAS's own figures and from the analysis it has undertaken, you are looking at an increase of some 24,000 early conciliation cases, which, again on ACAS's own figures, may cost up to an extra £10 million. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, you said that you were trying to make it fit. Is it the case that you need substantial amounts of additional money, or are you basically taking a good idea and trying to make it fit into the organisation you have currently got, which may be to the detriment to the process working properly for employers and employees?
Edward Sweeney: No. It has to be an element of the former, but we have to the get the figure work reasonably right. We cannot simply pluck a figure out of the air. There have been one or two figures bandied around in the economic impact assessment, but they are not our figures from ACAS. We want to be able to scope this particular work sensibly, trial it out and see where it goes. We have a fair idea of how it might work from our pre-claim conciliation, on that side of it, but we keep being asked the question by everybody, "How much do you want?" It is a bit like, "How long do you want a piece of string?" We are determined to try and get it as accurate as we possibly can and it will depend on the number of cases.
If I may, there is a slight misconception about the number of cases. If you look at the number of tribunal cases that go through, we get an extra 60,000 to 75,000 a year, but we count them differently than the way others do. For instance, if we have an equal pay case with 200 or 300 people against a trust, we class that as only one case because that is only one conciliation, even though it may be 300 tribunal applications. So we are looking for a sort of steady-state approach. We think that we might get 27,000 or 28,000 pre-claim conciliation, which is what we have now, and we may get the additional figures on top. But that is dependent on the economy and on where we need to be. I do not want the organisation to take a shot in the dark, because that is a reputational risk. A lot of people are putting faith in our early conciliation. We are saying that we want to do it. We are saying that we need to be equipped to do it. In terms of measuring that arrangement, I want to get it as accurate as we possibly can for all our sakes.
That is a very useful answer. Can I broaden this out slightly more in general terms and ask if any of the panel members can point to any significant evidence that shows that the Bill would generate additional employment or growth in the economy?
Michael Reed: It is an interesting question. It is perhaps an interesting question for an economist, rather than an employment lawyer, as to whether changing employment regulation can have a significant effect on growth and matters like that. I can only speak as an employment lawyer. From the point of view of what rights and employment laws it affects, this is a relatively low-impact Bill in terms of people's rights. It does not make massive, significant changes to most employment rights and most people's cases. The most significant impact is around conciliation and possibly changes to settlement agreements. We all have views on whether some of those are good or bad things. To be honest, I do not think that it is the sort of radical change that is likely to revolutionise what is going on.
Mike Emmott: I think that both the proposals on conciliation and on settlement agreements have the potential to be useful in terms of making workplaces more harmonious and taking out some of the conflict. There is no doubt that conflict undermines employee engagement, and there is a direct link between engagement and output. The question on settlement agreements is how they will be used. At the moment, they are a safety valve for the tribunal system.
The tribunal system is too intimidating and expensive in every sense for both employers and employees to use as a first choice. So compromise agreements have developed as a way of letting off the pressure. Settlement agreements have the potential to expand the area in which compromise agreements are used and to give employers some confidence that, simply by broaching the subject of performance, they are not going to be subject to some sort of claim at a tribunal, for example, of discrimination or constructive dismissal.
The impact of the change in law on settlement agreements and opening up the possibility for more without-prejudice conversations depends on how it is used. We have not seen the Bill yet. There is the potential, if the door is open too wide on those conversations and there is no protection for the individual taking part, it could be quite damaging and encourage a lot of bad practice.
Cathy James: I was just going to add something around protected conversations. I would mirror concerns raised by the unions earlier today. There is already an extension of the time for somebody to have entitlement to employment protection. I can see all sorts of areas where that might be a door open to bad practice, especially where somebody has raised a concern about malpractice. It is a common route for a bad employer to question the performance of an employee who has raised a concern. Suddenly, they have a route to get rid of them like that. We would be very worried about that development.
My final question relates to what Mr Emmott just said. In terms of settlement agreements, if the Secretary of State, as provisioned in the Bill, has the power to alter the amount of compensation to anything as low as median earnings at £25,000 or £26,000, does that not essentially give rise to compensated no-fault dismissal by the back door? Somebody could be earning significant amounts in addition to that and, therefore, it is easier just to go through this process to pay the money in compensation and get rid of an employee than go through the process properly.
Mike Emmott: The obvious difference between settlement agreements and no-fault dismissal is that settlement agreements require an agreement and that is quite important. Obviously there is a disparity of power in many cases, which means that the employee needs a bit of looking after. I do not see expanding without prejudice conversations as Beecroft by the back door.
I have not understood that through a greater use of settlement agreements there is any intention to prescribe how much employers might agree by way of compensation. In some cases, the people who leave might be quite highly paid. Compromise agreements are quite often used for high-value individuals as a way of moving them out of the door without too much hard feeling. I cannot anticipate that it would work. This is an area where employers have flexibility. It would be a great shame, under the banner of settlement agreements, to start trying to second-guess what a sensible level of compensation would be.
Michael Reed: The particular difficulty with settlement agreements is not around settling cases once they have crystallised and once both employer and employee know that they are in dispute and are negotiating. The difficulty is that the current regime provides protection for employees, because it requires there to be legal advice so that they can be told what the settlement agreement means and can have their options explained to them. The real danger that I see is employees being dismissed, sacked, offered a settlement agreement there and then and put under significant pressure to sign on the dotted line, particularly because when employees are dismissed, they have immediate concerns such as about receiving their latest wage packet. Unfortunately, there are many employers who will take the opportunity to say, "We are letting you go. If you sign this piece of paper, you can have your cheque now, but we are not giving it to you unless you sign."
The current regime, in which you require legal advice in order for the agreement to be binding, prevents that sort of unscrupulous behaviour. And the fact is that there is nothing in employment law that prevents an employer having discussions with their employees about their performance or work. Sometimes you can get the impression in the press that employment judges and the tribunals who decide these cases are terribly unworldly sorts who would regard the very suggestion that someone might be underperforming and therefore might be let go as something uniquely shocking. We are talking about people who deal with a lot of employment tribunal cases and who have seen a lot of employer and employee behaviour. Certainly my experience from appearing in front of them is that, if one runs that sort of point, one is met very quickly with robust good sense from the panel, who say, "You are reading far too much into this sort of behaviour. We know what is common and what is ordinary in employment situations."
It seems to me that, of the two objectives of the changes in the employment regime, the first is surely the need to simplify and speed up the process and, secondly, we need to reduce the cost, both to the employer and to the employee. Does the Bill achieve that, or is there a risk of the law of unintended consequences? Let me explain. Before the Bill, there was no such concept as the settlement agreement. After the Bill, we will have settlement agreements, ACAS conciliation if you do not reach agreement under the settlement and then, if ACAS does not work, the tribunal. So in fact, whether you are employee or employer, you land up with three possible stages. Clearly, the intention must be to keep both sides at the earlier stages, to reduce the cost and, frankly, the emotional trauma. Do we run the risk of unintended consequences, and how might we avoid it by making sure that at least the first stage works in the best way possible?
Michael Reed: The reason, as I think I alluded to in passing, is that there is this sort of protection and restriction on how you can settle in a public case—it is to protect employees, and it is there so you cannot be told, as a condition of your employment, "You have got to agree never to sue us for unfair dismissal." That means that there are more limited options of settling an employment dispute than there are other disputes. One of those is through ACAS, and the other is what we currently call compromise agreements, which are to be renamed settlement agreements. My experience of practice is that that does not cause any confusion. People either settle through ACAS or through compromise agreements. Although there are two different options, that does not in practice cause any problems, and I would not envisage any problems being caused by the change of name.
Equally, I have to say, whether you call them settlement agreements or compromise agreements seems to me to be a matter of complete indifference. The real issue is around the sort of protections that you need and whether or not it is right that, out of the blue, employers can have conversations with an employee that the employee is never allowed to refer to later in the course of tribunal proceedings. That is exactly the sort of evidence that Cathy talks about. You know—"On Monday, I raised all of these concerns about our business practices and my concern that something was going very wrong, and on Tuesday you said, 'Your performance is not very good and we are going to have to let you go.'" It is often that timeline evidence that is important in establishing a claim later. It also risks undermining good industrial practice. If you are an employer and you have a problem with the performance of one of your employees, the sensible and proper thing to do is to have a conversation with them and say, "Look, Mr Smith, you haven't been doing your work very well recently. What is the problem? Can we help?" It is later that you go through the process around dismissal and other such consequences. Simply saying, "Well, we'll give you £500 or £1,000 to go away quietly" is not a good thing to encourage employers to be doing.
Mike Emmott: In so far as conciliation and settlement agreements do encourage more people not to use tribunals and to find alternative ways of getting along with their lives, then probably they do reduce costs. I cannot see much evidence for simplification. Compromise agreements have been straightforward partly because they have been untouched and more or less little understood. If compromise agreements as such become a matter of more legislative finessing then I would be slightly worried that it would just exacerbate the problem that tribunals already cause. The cost of tribunals is not just financial; there are also serious costs in terms of health. Almost anything is worth looking at if it reduces the volume of tribunals.
Is there anything that could be done in terms of these settlement agreements, or the process around settlement agreements, that would mean that they would not be hijacked or face what happened to tribunals, which were originally meant to be nice, cheap, easy ways of resolving problems? What is it that any piece of legislation should or should not do to try to keep things simple, without involving all the advisers, consultants and—forgive me—lawyers?
Mike Emmott: My bid would be to protect good practice and performance management, which is the gold standard for how to deal with difficulties in the workplace. Protecting that means giving more support to small firms. I do not need to discuss that at length because it is a non-statutory approach. Other than that, I cannot think of anything else.
Edward Sweeney: I think that our point of view at ACAS is that the idea of a compromise agreement or settlement agreement does not become the default action of an employer. Most people and employers do not go to work to see what damage they can do to each other. We need to keep a sense of perspective on this particular arrangement. We have set out our view on the settlement arrangements.
Going back to your point on simplifying and cost, the whole process of early conciliation is to see if we can take some costs out of tribunals. Mike is right to say that the implications are not just financial; there is also the stress involved. I regularly talk to employers of all sizes and employees. The only people who enjoy tribunals are lawyers who get paid for them. By and large, the applicants and respondents find them very difficult and stressful arrangements. Any approach that we can produce at ACAS to try to limit the number of tribunals would be sensible. We do well now, but early conciliation could help us to improve on that particular process.
Cathy James: I suppose there is a risk that the whole process could be lengthened by having a compulsory conciliation process. Presumably, by putting in a discussion with ACAS, you will stop time running in relation to the time that it would take to lodge your claim. There is a risk that the unintended consequence of that, especially if ACAS is not resourced, is that that takes a long, long time so that you are then dealing with the employment tribunal claim months and months after the event, which is already the case. It is certainly true of whistleblowing cases because they tend to be complicated, listed for long periods of time and involve reams and reams of paper. They can be the ones that take 18 months before they get anywhere near an employment tribunal. That is one unintended consequence that I would definitely highlight. The second is around the public interest test itself and the fact that we think that that will result in a field day for lawyers looking at what the public interest is. As far as I can see at the moment, the only legislation where there is a public interest test is with the Freedom of Information Act, where public authorities are required to work out what is in the public interest in relation to the disclosure of information. To have that on an individual's shoulders will have a chilling effect where they are unrepresented, and will lead to an increase in the costs of ligation where they are represented, with many more satellite pieces of litigation—interim applications—around whether it is a protected disclosure at all because of whether it is in the public interest. I can see that absolutely having an unintended consequence.
I will start with you, Mike, but I want to ask this question of the entire panel. On balance, overall, and in just a couple of words, will workers be better or less protected following this Bill?
Mike Emmott: I find that hard to answer. It depends on the fine print on settlement agreements. We know that employees who sign up to a settlement agreement will be able to bring claims on grounds of discrimination. Whether they are successful does not matter, but the right to claim that they have been discriminated against on one of many grounds remains. Whether they will be able to bring claims for constructive dismissal, I am less clear. If they cannot, then to that extent I think their protection will have been reduced.
Edward Sweeney: The question about the two years is there for everyone to see. The question for everybody to look back on is whether the early conciliation produces, through the law of unintended consequences, a new form of three-step process. We have to try to work to ensure that that does not happen. If the proposal is introduced and done well, I think it is of benefit to employer and employee, trade unions, trade union officials, employer representatives, and not necessarily to lawyers, which I do not think is a bad thing.
We are getting into a lot of the minutiae and actually forgetting that the whole aim of this Bill is to stimulate growth and not to get people sacked, but rather to create more jobs. Will the panel give their opinion of how they think employers are going to view the proposals? How the behaviour of employers will change is important. Does the panel believe that employers feel that there has been huge increase in employment legislation and that that is a disincentive for them to take on more staff? Is that a given that we are presuming? Does the panel believe, as perhaps I hope, that these moderate—rather than radical—changes will have a psychological effect on employers in that they are seeing the tide turn back disproportionately to the reduction in regulations? There are about three questions there. First of all, as a premise, do you honestly believe that employers perceive that this employment legislation is a disincentive to take on more staff?
It really does not matter what your perception is. What matters is the perception of employers, as they are the ones who employ people.
Michael Reed: Equally, it is the perception of employees that they are at the mercy of their employers and that they cannot enforce any rights unless they bring a long, arduous tribunal case, which may not get them very much money. What ought to be considered in terms of making policy is what the reality of employment protection is—
We are trying to deliver growth, so can we just stick to answering the question?
Michael Reed: What employers or employees perceive about employment law is one thing, but I would hope that both groups' perceptions are based on reality. The reality is that if you take on a new member of staff, you will not have to worry about any unfair dismissal claims for two years. After the two years, if you want to dismiss an employee for misconduct, you will have to honestly believe that they did it; you will have to have some reason for believing that; you will have to have carried out a reasonable investigation into that misconduct; and you will have to give the employee—after all, they have worked for you for two years—a chance to respond to the allegations and to say what they want to say. I do not think that that is an arduous burden to put on an employer.
If you go to a tribunal, the tribunal will take account of your size and resources, and often, if you are a small employer, those issues will be decisive when the tribunal decides whether you have acted reasonably. If we are saying that employers believe that the law is something different from that, the way of addressing their perceptions about it is through education, rather than through changing the law on the principle that their perception of it is wrong. If their perception of it is wrong, it does not help to change the law to something else.
Mike Emmott: The debate on the link between the Bill and growth is essentially rather symbolic. I do not think there is much evidence that the Bill could conceivably have a significant impact on growth. How could it do so? I do not see it as a deregulatory Bill but, in any case—I am sure the people this morning told you this—the OECD thinks that the UK is a very lightly regulated country anyway. I think that that is a false debate. There is a debate to be had about the impact not on employers, but on employees. That is about whether the Bill encourages better management and whether it encourages a more engaged work force, which is a source of growth. The idea that this Bill impacts directly on growth through employers' attitudes is probably mistaken.
Cathy James: I have not seen any evidence that the protection of employment rights affects growth. I was listening to the evidence this morning, and I did not see that. It is not a proven fact. On whistleblowing in particular, most employers would want to receive an ill-founded whistleblowing concern rather than have a culture of silence, as happened, for example, in Mid Staffs hospital and in some of our newspapers. Questions about when the whistle is not blown far outweigh the question of whether the law protects people—well, the law should protect people.
I want to come back briefly, Mr Sweeney, to the point about ACAS resources. First, it seems to me that, at a time when we are essentially moving from the divorce courts to mediation—obviously, we are moving from tribunals to settlements—the number of tribunals may vastly underestimate the number of people who would come forward for mediation or settlements. There may be a hidden or lower part of the iceberg that will emerge.
Secondly, the economic conditions that we face—basically, zero growth through austerity, and a greater number of part-time staff and people who are insecure—may well again generate more people wanting to go towards settlements. I just find it rather strange that you should run an organisation, in which your resources are presumably almost fully utilised, that will take on this new burden. I am wondering what different scenarios you have pictured of different futures and how big an increment of extra resources you might need in those scenarios. You seem to be saying, "We'll see how it goes, and thank you very much for offering us some more money, but we don't really know."
Edward Sweeney: I am sure you are very aware as an MP that the negotiation that takes place between Departments is a long and strained one on occasions. The reality, from our point of view as the chair of ACAS, is that we are pretty confident, from the conversations that we have had with BIS, that we can find the resources that we would need to make it work, because if it does not work it falls on everybody.
You are going to do that, but what is the upper limit? How many times do you think your turnover might have to go up?
Edward Sweeney: It is impossible to say, at this point in time, if you look at the number of scenarios. For instance, we do not know whether charging for tribunals would have an adverse effect on either employers or employees. We have to model to find out whether the impact of charging result in fewer calls coming through, or will it result in more calls coming through, because people feel that they have paid their money, and so they are going to go to tribunal? Will there be less, from an employer's point of view, of engaging in conciliation, and the process we have, because people think employers will not have the money to put up front? We have to look at that side of the equation.
The people who come to us for early conciliation, or conciliation now, normally have a bigger issue than what goes on in their day-to-day lives. The question for us in terms of the process—Mike's people in the CIPD have done a great deal of work on this—is to make sure that the management processes and the management we have are good managers. They must know how to have difficult conversations, without racing to some form of quick solution that they think will get rid of an employee. It does not work that way, and it never has.
But in the round, if there is much more settlement activity than there has been tribunal, because people are coming to the surface, and because there are other things such as withdrawal of various rights and human rights and diversity and so on, and whistleblowing—all the other changes in this Bill, which pretends to be about growth—then that may even provoke greater activity at your end?
Edward Sweeney: It may well do, and we have to be ready and quick enough, and astute enough, to see that coming down the track. The helpline we run at the moment is a pretty good barometer of the sort of work we do, in terms of what is coming through in the workplace, so we can see the shape. We take about 1.5 million calls on our helpline. At the moment, that is the access point for pre-claim conciliation. The new process will mean people who are contemplating a tribunal will have to come to us directly first. That is the significant change in this process.
In terms of the volume, it is difficult to say. We have seen, when economic activity rises and falls, that that impacts on our casework. But if people are saying to me, "How much will we actually need?" then at this point in time I am not able to say, accurately. I want to be able to have those conversations with BIS, in an open and honest way, to say, "I need this." Let me give the assurance: if I feel I am not getting it, then I will simply complain and say "We cannot do what you are asking. It will not work."
I cannot simply drop off my other activity to try to fit this one in, because the other activity is equally important. People would want me to settle the petrol tankers dispute. The resources I need for that have to go through. People would want me to do the good practice services, going out and explaining new changes. There is a finite amount of money. I do not think what we have now in our budget would cover any sizeable increase. I am quite clear that we would need some additional resource, but I am not sure yet what level of additional resource.
May I ask the other witnesses, given their expertise, whether they instinctively feel that ACAS will be short of a few bob, to put it mildly, if they are not able to ignore some of these big disputes, and therefore people's rights and hearings may fall off the edge in the short term, while Ministers are scratching their heads and looking for money they have not got?
Mike Emmott: I think time scales for claims being considered and the effect of resource on the time it takes to deal with tribunal claims have gone up and down over the years, so I think it might take a few months before we know what the impact has been. I would not be particularly alarmed by the impact on volumes in the short term, because I think if there is an impact it will just be to move ACAS's intervention a bit further upstream. Hopefully it will actually catch things a bit earlier and reduce the likelihood that individual claims get to tribunal.
Michael Reed: I am very glad to hear that ACAS is so optimistic. I am less optimistic. This is a very significant extra amount of work that they will have to do, and it is certainly possible that some of the other changes in employment tribunals are going to make some elements of their work reduce, or make it easier. However, for example, once people are paying fees to go to employment tribunals, that will make claims harder to settle, because there will be a sunk cost issue, which will make elements of their work harder. I suspect it will come out in the wash, but that still leaves them with a significant expansion of work in pre-claim conciliation.
Cathy James: Will the fee be payable for the conciliation, or after the conciliation? What will happen with that? I would question that, and I think that whistleblowing cases are likely to give you your biggest challenge in relation to making a difference at an early stage, because the early-stage advice is really important with whistleblowing cases. We certainly do not encourage people to take employment tribunal claims, because they are lengthy, stressful and difficult, so I can see a benefit to having that service available—that is, intervening early before issues become really significant interventions.
Michael Reed: There is a real issue around what impact things like these will have on issues such as early conciliation. Under the current proposals—you are waiting to hear back on conciliation—people are going to have to pay a significant fee shortly before getting to an employment tribunal. I am sure that employers will look at pre-claim conciliation, and indeed post-claim conciliation, and say, "Why don't we just wait and see if they come up with that £1,000, because they might not and then we are out of it?" That will not be good employers and it might not be most employers, or a significant minority, but some will.
One problem with all consultation processes around employment law is that people like us come and talk, and we are the reasonable employees and employers. We are not the badly confused employees and employers who do not know what is going on and find it difficult to navigate the process, nor are we the outright unpleasant employees and employers who are not interested in behaving reasonably.
This morning, we heard from the Institute of Directors that the issue of workers, workers' rights and regulation is the third biggest issue facing the British economy. Our own BIS survey said that regulation rates at 6% as an overall concern for businesses, and regulating workers' rights is within that 6%. You, more than anyone we will interview, are at the coal face, or the chalk face of contact with employers and workers. Do you detect any great movement out there for weakening workers' rights? Is it the third biggest issue, or is it part of the 6%? Is the Institute of Directors right, or is it the BIS survey? Is there a great demand out there from the employers you meet on these issues for weakening workers' rights?
Mike Emmott: Not at all, although I have to say that many of our members are medium and large organisations, rather than tiny ones. There is a perception problem. I prefer the BIS evidence, and the BIS survey evidence, and I see no reason to doubt it. On the other hand, people are always putting themselves in other people's shoes and saying, "Yes, I can see that that would be a problem, wouldn't it?" It is partly a matter of confidence. When I talk to people who run small businesses, I am always impressed by how they are—I hesitate to say this—normal, humane, intelligent and competent guys. The fact that their business is small does not mean that they are lacking in any way—no more than the people who run big businesses are lacking. There is a perception problem, but we tell each other stories and we believe them, because they are plausible.
I do not get the impression that employment regulation is a major burden on small firms. The surveys that I see, other than the BIS one, talk about taxation, demand, loans and so on, and those are the issues that businesses really care about.
Are those issues that you have come across addressed in the Bill—yes or no?
Mike Emmott: I will say no. If you could tackle the issue of the confidence of the smallest employers in their ability to cope if they recruited—if you can tackle that by reassuring them—it would be fantastic, because it is a real issue. I do not think you could persuade them, for example, that it is worth taking away a lot of actual legislation. It is not the rights that people object to; it is the machinery that is used for enforcing compliance with rights that I think is the real problem.
Cathy James: I would just say that in terms of whistleblowing, enlightened organisations see that it is in their own best interests to have good whistleblowing policies. They see it as part of good governance, risk management and critical information, and they want to know if they are unknowingly harbouring malpractice. Therefore I have yet to see an employer who has said to us, "Oh isn't it a pain having this protection?" If you get it right you are not at risk in relation to the legislation. It is only if you get it wrong and there has been a failure in some way that people resort to the law. I do not get the impression that business is complaining about the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 at all. It has always had cross-party, cross-business support from trade unions and business interests.
Edward Sweeney: It is not part of the Finance Bill is it, on that side of it? I will talk about that for investment in ACAS. The BIS analysis is pretty solid in terms of those arrangements. The biggest concern is a perception issue about employment rights. It impacts on some small businesses. But bad cases make bad law. Anecdotes make bad law. Someone coming up and saying, "I had this bloke come to me last Tuesday."
With all due respect, you are so living in a parallel universe on what small businesses in this country need. You can come to Skipton and Ripon any day you want and I will introduce you to risk takers who definitely need this burden lifted. Can I clarify very clearly the points you made about settlement agreements? To summarise, you are all positive about settling pre-tribunal, whether through a settlement agreement or through conciliation? As long as that settlement agreement is voluntary and there is no long conversation that could be exempt from lots of legal questions, perhaps in the form of a letter—a voluntary offer—that is fine? As long as there is no predetermined compensation you would be happy? As long as at the end of the day there is a compromise agreement where there is legal representation on both sides you would feel on balance, even though you do not love settlement agreements, even though you will never think they are the panacea that we need, you are all okay with them? Could I go through with you one by one whether that is the case?
Mike Emmott: Yes. The one thing that is not the case is that I would support settlement agreements any more than I would support compromise agreements, as they now are, at the expense of decent management. You only get there when you have screwed up or when you are worried about something that you are not prepared to face in a more intelligent way.
Michael Reed: Conciliation at the earliest possible stage is always good and mechanisms that make that easier are good, but the fact is, it is not difficult at the moment and there is a risk that if you try to make it easier by removing the protections we will find that the protections were there for a good reason.
Cathy James: I would agree save for one really important issue with whistleblowing, which is that there should not be any gagging. We have put forward an amendment that could make it a positive requirement for lawyers who advise on settlement agreements to highlight the anti-gagging provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
A small employer said to me, "The employees have got the rights and the employers have the responsibilities. The balance has tipped too far. At the end of the week I haven't got a right to a profit. When I don't make a profit I don't have any more employees." Mike Emmott has said that small employers are bothered about taxation. Well, vexation is the equivalent of taxation and regulation is vexation. That is what they see this as. It is almost a form of taxation by regulation.
Mike Emmott: I think what employers worry about is when the law is changed. They always struggle to adapt. I do not think many people would want to take away maternity rights. I do not think that many people are opposed to flexible working. The employers I talk to do not ask us to remove the actual rights. That is why I said it is the machinery and legislative change that cause the problem. That is when you get the actual protests.
Michael Reed: There is a real danger of having this debate by anecdote. Some small employers struggle with employment rights, get confused and have difficulty, and some small employers believe that paying their employees should be optional, and that it is absolutely outrageous if someone brings a claim. They are not the majority of employers, any more than it is the majority of employees who are vexatious and out to con something out of their employer by bringing a claim. However, if you are going to have employment rights, you must have a mechanism by which they are enforced.
Further on the small employer point, there is a real difficulty if you begin excluding small employers from certain employment rights—
So do you believe that employment rights can only ever move in one direction? They have moved in only one direction for the past 50 years. Is that your aim—that they should always move in that direction?
Edward Sweeney: Can I just go into the mediation part of ACAS, in terms of Michael's response? It is a mixed world out there. There are some very poor employers as there are some very poor employees; that is the reality. To be fair to Michael, FRU does a fantastic job at some of the sharp end of some very difficult cases that no one else wants to represent, so I can understand that. I would not share his view that there are lots of employers who do not—
Edward Sweeney: I would not even say it was some. I think it is a very small percentage, and it gives the wrong impression of work image. That is certainly not the experience of ACAS, and we deal with all types of employers—some good, some bad—and all types of employees—some good, some bad—and, dare I say it, some difficult trade union general secretaries.
Good legislation needs good analysis, not good anecdotes. It also needs good consultation. May I bring you back to clause 14, as I do not think we covered that as much as we should have done? I do not think we have a particularly good settlement when it comes to clause 14 and whistleblowing. This, from you, Ms James, is an absolutely excellent submission, but could you summarise what you think the problems are in the lack of consultation—I think you say that it is a missed opportunity—on what clause 14 should look like in order to make it better?
Cathy James: Our primary point is that it should be removed and there should be a consultation on it, so that there is consideration of the other areas in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The interplay between the public interest test and the good faith test were mentioned by Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman inquiry—that it would be a good idea to remove the good faith test. We have put in a number of ideas regarding the amendment of that, and one of them is to remove it entirely and have a public interest test. However, we are not suggesting that we have all the answers. There needs to be a proper public debate on that matter.
The other problematic issue is that there is a gaping hole in relation to vicarious liability. There are no vicarious liability mechanisms in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. That has come out in a recent Court of Appeal decision, and it needs to be dealt with. It can be quite easily dealt with by mirroring what is in the Equality Act 2010, but again, with the debate going on the protection in the 2010 Act, we would suggest that there should be a proper consultation on this—the protection of workers, public appointments, non-executive directors, student nurses, GPs, student doctors, volunteers and interns. There are a lot of areas where fresh eyes can come into an organisation and be the first to see something go wrong, but non-executive directors are the least protected in the boardroom, and obviously employees. There needs to be some discussion about those fundamental points. Should the police be a second-tier regulator? Should it always have to be on the shoulders of Government to consider prescribing a regulator every time there is a change in regulation, with the loss of the Audit Commission? What happens with that regulatory point? All those issues need to be considered. Our primary point would be: let us start again here and have a proper consultation, as opposed to merely narrowing the scope without thinking about the wider issues.
We have just a few seconds left. Does anyone have a last word on this point?
A bloke in my constituency told me—[ Laughter. ]
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses, whom I thank on behalf of the Committee. We will now move on to oral evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.


text:
Collard Green Gratin
2 ½ lbs. green cabbage, shredded into ½" pieces
2 ½ lbs. green tomatoes, cut into ½" dice
6 red fresno chiles, sliced into ¼" rings
1 sweet onion, ¼" dice
1 c. green onion, shaved
¼ c. salt
4 c. cider vinegar
2 c. granulated sugar
1 c. yellow mustard
1 c. mustard seeds
1 ea. cinnamon stick
1 Tbls. garlic, minced
1 tsp. crushed red pepper
salt and black pepper to taste
Cooking Instructions
1. Toss the green tomatoes and cabbage with the ¼ c. salt and let sit for an hour, then when ready to use rinse very well with cold water to remove all the salt
2. After making sure veggies are drained of liquid, combine all other ingredients except for the prepared mustard & scallion in a saucepan and bring to a simmer
3. Let mixture cook very gently over low heat until it reduced approx. 25% and thickens slightly (approx. 20-25 mins)
4. Fold in the prepared mustard, let simmer for 5 minutes more, then fold in the green onions and season w/ salt and pepper as needed

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From our text the main memory is the central storage unit in a computer system. It is a relatively large and fast memory used to store programs and data during the computer operation. The principal technology used for the main memory is based on semiconductor intergrated circuits. Intergrated circuit RAM chips are available in two possible operating modes, static and dynamic, The static Ram consists essentially of internal flip-flops that store the binary inforation. The stored information remains valid as long as powre is applied to the unit. The dynamic Ram stores the binary information in the form of electric charges that are applied to capacitors. The capacitors are provided inside the chip by MOS transitors. The stored charge on the capacitors tend to discharge. The dynamic RAM offers reduced power consumption and larger storage capacity in a single memory chip. The static RAM is easiser to use and has shorter read and write cycles.
RAM - RAM stands for "random access memory" and is volatile.
Static RAM(SRAM) - SRAM doesn't have to be constantly refreshed. Uses a lot of power. Used in old IBM XT machines and was limited to 256K per chip.
*Dynamic RAM(DRAM) - DRAM use capacitors instead of transistors and switches. Needs constant refresh.
There are two basic types of RAM:
* Dynamic RAM (DRAM) A type of physical(A physical data structure refers to the actual organization of data on a storage device. The logical data structure refers to how the information appears to a program or user. For example, a data file is a collection of information stored together. This is its logical structure. Physically, however, a file could be stored on a disk in several scattered pieces. ) memory used in most personal computers. The term dynamic indicates that the memory must be constantly...


text:
"What a beautiful thing the stone pine is!" said Ford Madox Ford in The Good Soldier. I read that novel many years ago, in Castagneto Carducci (near Livorno), on the Tyrrhenian sea (west coast of Italy), where these trees (also known as umbrella pines) are common. When I first went to live in Italy at the age of seven, it was in fact in Livorno. I suspect my love for them derives from these early impressions. I have retained my attachment to the Maremma area ever since then.
Umbrella pines (Pinus pinea) are called pini marittimi in Italian, although this term is also used in Italy for Pinus pinaster. The latter are more cold-resistant, less lovely and do not produce the delicious (and expensive) edible pine nuts that Pinus pinea do. Edible pine nuts can also come from other species, such as the Chinese nuts, generally considered inferior to the Italian ones.
The beautiful tree is associated with rural and seaside areas, but it is of course also found in urban areas, notably Rome (Naples, too). The composer Ottorino Respighi, from Bologna, was also besotted by the wonderful plants, composing his famed I pini di Roma in 1924.


text:
Welcome to my blog! Grab a cup of coffee and get comfy in your chair, let's visit and get to know each other a little better.
I'm Rashel ~
I am so glad you stopped by.
Let me tell you just a little about myself - I am married to my best friend and I strive daily to be the kind of wife God would have me to be. We have four amazing children and I pray that I am training them up according to God's way.
My passion is encouraging other women in this race of life.
1 Corinthians 9:24-27
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
I believe our faith should be lived out in every area of our lives, even in our health. God has instilled a desire for health and fitness in my life and I pray that as I share my "run" in life that you will be encouraged in your own.
My aim is to share my "run" with you honestly and openly. I want to be real, sharing the awesome achievements as well as the not so pretty struggles.
However, please remember that I am not an expert and any advice I share is just my own and not to be taken as professional advice. I encourage each of you to learn what is best for yourselves and for your own families, seeking professional advice when needed.
I pray you are blessed by your time here.


text:
I'm a sponge who loves to soak in information. One of my top Strengths from StrengthsFinder is "Learner." I will deep dive into a random esoteric topic for weeks and weeks, learning everything I can about it (like tea, for example). I even got my Masters in Learning and Design because I'm just that nerdy.
But I'll tell you what learning has really done for me: Learning has given me the perfect excuse to take risks and pivot my career trajectory.
Eliminate & Integrate
After college, I wondered: "How does research affect policy? I want to learn about that." I worked at a non-profit in D.C. learning how research affects policy. But what I really learned was that I hated the cubicle life.
So I crossed that off my list.
The next year, I wondered: "How might we be able to look inside the brain during meditation? I want to learn about that." I worked in a lab at the Stanford Medical School. But what I really learned was that I hated crunching data and research was too slow for an "activator" type like me. I also wasn't sure I was helping anyone...
So I crossed that off my list.
The following year, I wondered: "How might we support women out of the sex trade? I want to learn about that." I worked for Anchal Project and headed to India by myself. I felt like I was getting closer to my calling. But I learned that I probably needed to head my own initiative or social business.
I also used to think I needed to make a big impact, until I met Dada.
So I crossed "save the world by sacrificing myself" off my list.
Huge relief.
The year after that, I wondered: "How might we support people in feeling happier and healthier? I want to learn about that." I enrolled in a Masters program. Then I learned a whole bunch of things:
- I learned that I loved creating beautiful intimate spaces where people could be themselves, fully intimate and present.
- I learned that I was far more creative than I had ever believed was possible.
- I learned that I wanted to work on supporting people to design their lives.
Then I designed my path by weaving all the pieces together: women's empowerment, design, art, spirituality, entrepreneurship, creating safe spaces, meditation...
And I shaved off the rest: stifling office space, corporate structures, lack of contact with people, lack of control over schedule, and other people's ideas of power and success.
Deep sigh.
Be Curious & Experimental
What I wish someone had told me when I was having those breakdowns and anxiety attacks about "my purpose in life" at every moment of uncertainty, transition, and pivot:
It's all about course-correction. You're going through a self-sculpting process {tweet this}.
To a degree, I was naturally doing a form of design thinking even though I didn't know it at the time. As you may have noticed, every career move I made started with a question I wanted to investigate (yup, nerd!). Then I went and investigated it. Curiosity was the underlying energy. Learning was the process. Clarity was the outcome.
What's nice about design thinking though is that it focuses on creating small prototypes of the experiences without going through the whole experience. So instead of working 2 years at the Medical School, I would have been able to figure out I didn't want to crunch data all day in a few weeks (or maybe even a half-day)!
But I hadn't given myself the permission to be that lean, exploratory and experimental because "I had to make money" and I felt ashamed for not having "figured it all out yet."
Why Does it Matter?
I'm amazed at how much I now use design thinking in my coaching work. I want women to self-sculpt with more ease – save themselves time, energy, and thousands of dollars. And not in the name of speed and efficiency.
But in the name of feeling alive as soon as possible.
Because the now is all there is. Because women need themselves to feel alive. Because the world needs women to feel alive. Women who are vibrant, conscious, and giving.
If you are in the self-sculpting process, please remember:
You don't find the path, you create it. And part of the creative process is risk-taking, making mistakes, learning, and course-correcting {tweet this}.
You are in the process of feeling more alive – so congrats!
Take Action
Write a comment below this post or reply to me: Share a direction that feels risky for you. What is a question about this direction you could begin to investigate?
xo Majo
If you haven't already done so, sign up here to receive a list of my top professional self-discovery tools for women (it's also free!).
Original photo (modified) by Naim Naim


text:
A Window of Opportunity
The ups and downs of being an Evertonian in the transfer window eh?? At 10pm on transfer deadline night we were all raging bulls, fuming at the embarrassing news of a 'ridiculous' bid to Wigan and learning how Lukaku was heading down the M6 to the wrong training ground. An hour later, we were all … Continue reading
How long will it take before Merseyside captures the attention of football once again?
For once, relevance was to be found in ridicule. If it wasn't for more than 70,000 Manchester United supporters politely inquiring if they were watching, Merseyside's role in the final, defining weeks of the Premier League season would have extended no further than Everton losing their manager to the champions without a single penny changing hands. … Continue reading
Time for Everton board to put hands in their own pockets to back Moyes
by Tony Barrett, The Times Newspaper January 02 2013 13:01PM The month of January has been billed as pivotal to the future of David Moyes. That, though, is to underplay and individualise its importance – the next 29 days could determine whether Everton are able to rejoin the elite or begin the process of becoming … Continue reading
Another summer of hardship ahead?
This summer could be Everton FCs biggest in recent history. Consider the start of last season, Bill Kenwright told us: "we make £80m and our outgoings are £85m." Last season we sold Bellefield, (which we obviously can't do again) and made a hefty sum from player sales to cover the Club's debt. Robert Elstone, the … Continue reading
Several Blue Union supporters recently contacted various officers with a link to an article here, published on Everton fan site 'Dixie's Sixty' which claimed to be a balanced view from a supporter equally fed up with The Blue Union and the board but, once read, appears to be more than 85p in the pound against … Continue reading
The Blue Union Race Night Fundraiser
The Blue Union are proud to announce a fundraiser for Saturday 25th February at 7pm in the Bramley Moore pub on the Dock Road, Liverpool. The fundraiser will be in the form of a race night with the aim of raising some much needed funds for our planned "Day of Protest" for the home game … Continue reading
Two weeks can be a long time in football and that is certainly the case for The Blue Union. Since our strategy meeting on January 25th it's been pretty hectic for both us and Everton Football Club, the latter having a particularly busy time both on and off the pitch. For us the hard work … Continue reading
Blue Union agree on strategy moving forward
On a cold wet Wednesday winter evening, Blue Union supporters, concerned by the all too apparent crisis enveloping our great club, packed into a Liverpool city centre venue to take part in a strategy meeting. The purpose of the strategy meeting was for The Blue Union Officers to listen and gauge the mood of the … Continue reading
The next Blue Union public meeting takes place in one week at The Casa, Hope Street, Liverpool from 7pm on Wednesday 25th January 2012. The goings on at our club continue to be extremely dynamic and this strategy meeting is to gauge opinions from our supporters on the way forward for the Blue Union with … Continue reading
"Your Blue Union have really betrayed this club."
The Blue Union wishes to issue the following statement in response to the above comment made by Everton chairman Bill Kenwright during a brief and now well publicised exchange with a small group of Evertonians prior to Saturday's 3rd round FA Cup tie with Tamworth at Goodison Park. 'The Blue Union' are a group of … Continue reading


text:
Singers and their supporters need to be challenged and taken out of their comfort zone from time to time.
And that's what happens in Matlock Musical Theatre's ambitious undertaking of Into The Woods this week.
Ambitious because of its vocally demanding score which means it is rarely tackled by amateur companies.
But this group had the firepower to pull off incredibly complex songs such as Your Fault which is a triumph of talent and timing.
Good singing and characterisation by main performers Jo Petch as Cinderella, James Strath as the Baker, Zoe Taylor as the Baker's Wife, Maria Dent as The Witch and Andrea Turner as Little Red Riding Hood and Beth Allwright as Jack (of beanstalk fame) keeps the audience engrossed.
The musical is a strange beast, verging on opera at times, coming close to pantomime at others. It plays out well-loved fairy stories leading to a traditional happy ending at the interval. However, the bubble bursts in the second act when the giant's widow comes seeking revenge, a couple of characters die and Cinderella realises that life as a princess isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Sublime music, which is occasionally lullaby-like, is beautifully performed by a four-strong band led by the show's director and musical director Paul Nash.
The acoustics at Matlock Bath Pavilion are ideal, the giant's footsteps echoing through the cavernous hall.
A thin audience for the first performance last night (Thursday) must have been disappointing for the company given all the hard work which had gone into the production.
Into The Woods continues its run tonight, tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow night.


text:
State Police are confirming at least one person has died after a motor vehicle crash on Route 3 South just north of Exit 3.
"Preliminary investigation by Trooper Kevin Brito indicates that a 2001 GMC Sierra pick-up operated by a 49-year-old New Bedford man, was traveling southbound when the vehicle left the roadway and entered the center median," according to a release from the Massachusetts State Police. "The vehicle struck several trees, rolled over, and came to rest on the driver's side."
Authorities say the driver was not wearing a seat belt. Troopers are investigating excessive speed and mechanical problems as a possible factor in the crash.
Police say troopers from the Bourne Barracks were assisted at the scene by the State Police Collision Analysis and Reconstruction Section, State Police Crime Scene Services Section and Plymouth County State Police Detective Unit.
The crash, just before 2:30 p.m., involving a truck that rolled over, limited traffic flow in the area. The breakdown lane was the only lane available to traffic.
Reach Thousands of Potential Customers on The South Shore and Beyond! Call WATD Today for More Info on Radio and Internet Advertising: (781) 837-1166


text:
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said yesterday that climate change will be a concern in some Asian countries, including Cambodia.
He encouraged the countries to find ways to manage any affects on their economies. Economists recognise it will lower growth in some main sectors of the economy – especially the agricultural sector.
"I was surprised even in the last six months; the data on climate change has become ever more frightening. Things that we thought would only happen with higher temperature changes are happening now," said Kim during a press briefing at the 2012 IMF-WB Annual Meeting in Tokyo.
He said droughts that have resulted in increased food prices were caused by man-made climate change. And, 97 per cent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real – "[this is a] frightening amount of unanimity".
"I think we have to begin looking hard at what the world is going to look like for our children," Kim said.
According to Kim, focusing efforts on mitigation and adaptation are important.
"Our task is to find ways of encouraging ever greater efforts in both mitigation and adaptation to climate change but mitigation is really critical," he said. "Can we find ways of creating enormous markets for new technologies focused on mitigation of climate change? I think there are tremendously exciting possibilities."
These technologies are paths to economic growth, he said.
"We simply have to find those opportunities, we have to encourage the best and brightest companies and countries to seize that opportunity and understand that the path to economic growth could very well be in engaging in finding new technologies, new approaches to mitigate climate change."
Chan Sophal, director the of Cambodian Economic Association, recognised that the current climate definitely affects some areas of economic growth. "Of course, it is a concern in terms of the growth of the economy," he said. "It will definitely affect the farmers who are very vulnerable.
"Of course, it will mostly hit the agricultural sector," added Chan Sophal.
The key to dealing with these effects are putting in place measures to make the sector more resilient, he said.
"I think our country has not properly dealt with natural disasters – like floods or droughts. We just see relief when there is damage. What we need is resilience help – requiring the government to build good irrigation channels so that when it floods or a drought happens, the farmers can continue to cultivate," he added.
Drought has hit 11 of the 24 provinces in Cambodia and affects tens of thousands of hectares of rice seedlings, according to the National Committee for Disaster Management.
Cambodia's government plans to export more than 1 million tons of milled rice, however, there are many challenges, flood and drought being two of them.
Cambodia's exports of milled rice dropped about 35 per cent in the first half of this year to 78,000 tonnes, compared to 120,000 tonnes during the corresponding period in 2011, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.
Data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries show that in 2011, Cambodia produced 7.8 million tonnes of paddy rice with a surplus of 4.34 million tonnes, which is equal to 2.78 million tonnes of milled rice.
The World Bank recently revised Cambodia's economic growth down from 6.9 per cent earlier to 6.6 per cent this year and 6.7 per cent in 2013.
To contact the reporter on this story: May Kunmakara at [email protected]


text:
'The camera itself is pretty well-designed and easy to grip and shoot.'
'The NEX cameras are primarily about squeezing DSLR quality into compact bodies.'
'The Sony NEX-5 is an excellent camera for hobbyist photographers upgrading from compacts who want to increase capability but not bulk. '
'smallest interchangeable lens camera'
'with a feature-set which genuinely stands out from the competition.'
'excellent camera'
'its overall response times are very good.'
'Indoor metering was usually spot-on, indicating this camera has probably been designed for gentler Northern Hemisphere lighting.'
'freezeproof, dustproof and shockproof digital compact camera'
'The DSC-TX5 looks just like many of the other slim, fashionable models in the Cyber-shot TX series , but this camera is built to withstand shocks, water, freezing, heat, and dust.'
'very pretty camera'
'thinnest and smallest camera'
'its overall photo quality is less exceptional.'
'The neat design and great build are, perhaps, typically Sony, as is the price, but this little camera combines some advanced features with simplicity of use. '
'If you need a small digital camera that can also shoot Full HD video, then the tiny Sony Cyber-shot DSC-TX7 is a worthy choice. '
'good quality snapshot camera'
'Nice little camera'
'Measuring 3.75 by 2.38 by 0.66 inches and weighing five ounces, the DSC-TX1 is small enough to fit into a coat pocket, and it won't take up a lot of room in a purse. '
'If you're all gussied up, you might as well bring a camera like Sony's fashion-conscious, 10.2-megapixel , a touchscreen camera that lets you party instead of fussing with camera settings.
'Like the T90, the TX1 isn't the quickest camera off the mark — shutter lag measures 0.3 second, and in the high-speed burst mode the TX1 captures 10 frames in rapid succession, at an interval of approximately 0.1 second between each shot. '
'the camera responded quick enough to most operations.'
'good mega-zoom camera'
'If you are looking only for an average speed camera at a low price, then the megazoom camera will be a good choice for you. '
'Luckily, the T90 has more to offer than just widescreen-ready images. '
'pretty sleek looking camera'
'However, even in Program AE mode we were left wanting more, and it was obvious that the Cyber-shot DSC-T90 was designed for beginners and technophobes rather than discerning photographers. '
'The T90's svelte body is available in a range of colors including pink, brown, blue and black.'
'The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W570 is simple to use with reliable auto shooting and decent low-light photos in a very small body.'
'very good take-everywhere ultracompact camera'
'Well priced.'
Average camera
'slow shooting performance'
'It has a small handgrip for your right hand, and it's comfortable to use. '
'Outdoor wide angle shot'
Good quality lens with optical image stabilization
'Plus, it's small and attractive and has reliable options ideal for snapshooters. '
'it's small and attractive and has reliable options ideal for snapshooters.'
'No manual options.'
'Very small, weak flash; Very short battery life; No separate video recording button. '
ReviewGist helps you find the best products to buy by making sense of online reviews.
We are currently aggregating 376,500 reviews
covering over 29,483 products.
© 2019 ReviewGist.com. All Rights Reserved.