Liberal Democrat Sharon Bowles, who represents South East England at the European Parliament, has called on the food industry to stop making ready meals for one person that contain more than 100% of the recommended daily allowance of saturated fat.

According to the Food Standards Agency the recommended daily allowance of saturated is 30g for a man and 20g for a woman.

The UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has said that thousands of lives could be saved if high levels of saturated fat in processed food are reduced.

Sharon Bowles MEP said:

“I do not believe a ready meal, marketed for one person, should contain more than 100% of the recommended daily allowance of saturated fat.

“While the traffic light system allows consumers to make a more informed decision about which food products they buy, there is no justification for producing, for mass consumption, ready meals so high in saturated fat.

“One example I have seen, a supermarket’s own brand of macaroni and cheese, which serves one, contains 180% of the recommended daily allowance of saturated fat. That is nearly twice the recommended daily allowance in one meal. This should be marked with skull and crossbones, not just a red label!

“I am not telling people what they should or should not eat but rather calling on the food industry to stop making such appallingly unhealthy meals.”

“We all recognize that our economic fate is inextricably linked with the rest of Europe. We want Europe to work; to put aside all quarrels; and make common cause to deal with the massive economic problems which we now face.”

Business Secretary Vince Cable today delivered the first speech to the European Parliament by a Cabinet Minister from the Coalition Government.

Read the speech in full below:

I am pleased to be the first Minister from Britain’s new Coalition Government to speak at the European Parliament. I want to give my thanks to Jean Pisani Ferry from Bruegel, Malcolm Harbour MEP, Fiona Hall MEP and Timothy Kirkhope MEP for making this happen.

In the last decade, our predecessors were inclined to deliver lectures to the rest of the EU from our presumed position as leaders in economic management. Since then we have led in other ways: the worst deficit in the G20, and beyond; one of the biggest property bubbles; the most overweight banking sector; one of the worst recessions. Rest assured that you will not be getting any lectures from the UK today.

The new British coalition Government believes that positive engagement with the European Union is an essential part of our economic and political relations. So I’d like to focus on our approach to trade, economic growth and the vital role of the EU, its institutions and its policy makers.

Firstly, growth – where the focus of President Barroso and others is most welcome. But the Europe 2020 strategy, with its emphasis on innovation, skills and mobility, only tells part of the story. Far more important, in my view, is the role of trade and open markets – which have always been central to the whole European project.

We must remember that during a decade in which the EU has grown by just 1.7% per year, China’s growth has averaged 10%, with India’s not far behind at 7%. Others like Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia are also keeping pace and closing the gap on the developed world. The recent crisis has accelerated a shift in the centre of gravity that has been happening for over two decades and foreshadows a re-emergence of economies that dominated the world economy until just two centuries ago.

Their impact is already massive. China accounts for the largest part of incremental demand for many commodities and world commodity prices are increasingly set by the interaction between emerging market demand and OPEC, Brazilian and Russian supply. The developed world is now a price taker rather than a price setter. There has also been a huge impact on the global flows of savings. We have a perverse position where the poorer countries are in effect lending to the richest. And global competition has driven down both prices and real wages in rich countries in the last decade.

All this is disturbing and frightening to those in Europe who have only recently got used to the idea that emerging countries are no longer peasant economies, ex-colonies, deserving of condescension or even pity. Such concern is misplaced. By far the greatest long term consequence of this rebalancing is to create a stronger and more dynamic world economy. The old adage – a rising tide lifts all boats – should apply to us.

But with a hardening of attitudes towards elements of private enterprise since the financial crisis, some instead see this moment as an opportunity to turn away from the free trading, open market model that has done so much for Europe. Turning inwards and towards dirigiste controls is precisely the wrong thing to do.

But the context is a difficult one. We are now grappling with the consequences of the most severe recession since the 1930s, though EU countries have been hit to varying degrees and in different ways. The underlying causes are complex and I have tried in my recent book ‘The Storm’ to analyse the fundamental imbalances which produced a global surplus of savings and low, long-term interest rates; easy credit conditions which produced asset bubbles in the UK, the US, Spain and Ireland; and poorly capitalised banks which overreached themselves in mortgage markets and in the manufacture of complex derivatives. The subsequent banking collapse has had many historical precedents, most recently in Scandinavia two decades ago, but its scale is unsurpassed.

The economic storm and its aftermath had the effect of exposing the weaknesses in many national economies: those highly dependent on banking; those exposed to inflated property markets; those which had large amounts of public debt and in consequence a dependence on the forbearance of bond markets to finance themselves. Deep structural weaknesses manifested themselves differently: in the UK and Ireland, through a severe budget deficit caused by a substantial part of the revenue base disappearing; elsewhere in the Eurozone, through steadily losing competitiveness over a period of time.

These problems are different in origin, but now overlap. The EU now faces two opposing problems. On the one hand, volatile and risk averse capital takes flight at any signs that budgets are not under control. On the other, a simultaneous assault on budget deficits has the effect of transmitting deflationary pressures across Europe. That is why countries have agreed to take a differentiated approach to consolidation. Governments like mine had little alternative to focus on the former problem. But unfortunately there is no compulsion on countries with a stronger fiscal position to support spending, and demand, across the EU.

Last week I had a friendly exchange with my German opposite number, a fellow Liberal. I quoted Keynes to him. He quoted back to me another British economist, Ricardo. “Ricardian equivalence” says that it is pointless to stimulate economies through critical deficit since the public will expect future tax increases and adjust their spending accordingly. I don’t want to parody the difference – the Germans have applied a Keynesian stimulus and Ricardo has a following in the UK. But clearly we lack a full meeting of minds.

These are demand-side issues – vital in the short term. But for the longer term we should be looking to the agenda of Europe 2020 or what economists would call supply side reform.

Let me start with trade: trade defined in its widest sense to include that in goods, services, labour and capital. I happen to think this is one of the biggest intellectual and political challenges of our time. I am an old-fashioned, unreconstructed, believer in free trade. Trade is not a zero-sum game where one country gains at the expense of another. It benefits all countries because specialisation reduces costs and broadens access to a wider variety of products. Technology and good practice is disseminated. Competition stimulates and rejuvenates economies. A relapse into policies of nationalism and protectionism – whether in relation to goods or services or investment – would be a massive, and costly, mistake.

The first way forward is to push on with the Doha agenda. At present little is happening. This worries me, since I subscribe to the theory of Jacques Delors that trade negotiations, like bicycles, tend to fall over unless they are pedalled. At present, the main obstacles are in the US, China and India, but the EU will have to engage and make concessions on access. I’m not naïve about the difficulties but the prize is worth fighting for – and safeguards against much worse outcomes. I don’t want to scaremonger but those with some knowledge of history will recall that four years after the Great Crash we had Smoot-Hawley and the downward spiral of economic nationalism in the 1930s. Today, the contribution by trade policy to growth will be even more important, for good or ill, since economies are now much more interrelated.

Failing to make progress on Doha does not make the agenda of liberalising trade go away. We also have the option of regional Free Trade Agreements: the almost complete deal with Korea, and good possibilities in India and Mercosur. On a recent trip to Brazil I was told that there is now a serious will to negotiate. We must match that will.

We must beware of environmental and labour concerns serving as fig leaves for protectionist policies. Developing countries tend to regard trade conditionality of this kind as simply an excuse to erect barriers – which can harm not hinder dialogue on these deeper social concerns

And let us remember the huge benefits gained by the developing world from access to markets. Consider the devastation caused by the recent flooding in Pakistan. Yes, we should send aid. But trade offers the Pakistanis themselves a far more durable route out of poverty. I hope the Council and the Parliament will work together to cut tariffs on key Pakistani exports, to provide a boost to Pakistan’s economy and provide much needed employment at a time of desperate need. This is a compelling way of showing that new powers the institutions have under the Lisbon treaty work.

This is also, why I’m looking forward to Michel Barnier’s Single Market Act, which could restore energy and relevance to the single market. Professor Monti’s report makes a really major contribution by identifying potential areas of liberalisation. I am flattered to notice that he is here. But I don’t agree with Monti on one point: that we need a “package deal” to ‘compensate’ people for freer trade – by for example introducing social legislation. The pill doesn’t need sweetening, and the sweeteners may also do serious harm.

I urge Barnier to focus on areas of real economic gain – such as the digital and low carbon sectors and the unfinished business in energy liberalisation; and let’s eliminate barriers to cross-border trade in business-to-business services – far too many service industries remain relatively cosy and national. I do not mean the wholesale privatisation of public services, but the cosy relationships in the private sector like accounting and audit, legal services, construction and tourism where the closed shop is often alive and well.

In the past – being ‘pro-business’ was too often equated with standing up for those large companies with the closest links to government – self-styled national champions. This was a huge mistake which we should not repeat. The Single Market re-launch won’t work unless it helps those smaller companies that are not only key to job creation but often drive the sort of creative innovation that leads to greater competitiveness– the very point of the Lisbon agenda. Many European SMEs consider trade too high risk and too costly. They should be confident that if they encounter barriers, someone will stick up for them. This means stronger, more accessible means of redress in the single market. I hope Michel Barnier will devote a section of the Single Market Act to this.

The Single Market also ensures a level playing field for competition, in particular through state aid rules. All Member States, including the UK, have been guilty of special pleading in the past. I welcome commissioner Almunia’s commitment to ensuring that the Temporary Framework is true to its name – temporary! As he says, Europe’s long term interests demand that we keep the market “open, integrated and competitive”. It strikes me as crazy that cash-strapped Governments are forced into competing with each other to send cheques to profitable businesses.

What is true of goods and services is also true for labour. I urge the EU to recognise the value of flexible labour markets, and consider the interests of those seeking to get back into work, and not just those who already have jobs. There is much that Britain has got wrong but our flexible labour markets helped us get through the worst of the recession with only a moderate impact on employment. We must also move beyond stale old debates on issues like the Working Time Directive and its ‘opt-out’. In the 21st century, with stalled productivity and a looming demographic crisis, it is neither fair nor sensible to force people to work fewer hours than they would freely choose. Many member states are rueing the day they adopted early retirement schemes, supposedly to cut employee liabilities.

Overall the Commission has a good reputation for standing up to monopolies and cartels and it must build on it. This is what I was referring to in my recent conference speech, which received a great deal of colourful misrepresentation in our tabloids. By saying that “Capitalism kills Competition”, I was giving voice not to Karl Marx but to a simple truth that every businessman knows instinctively – that businesses strive continuously to find ways of charging an above-cost price, to make some extra profit. This profit motive drives their innovation, their investment, their marketing, their risk taking – everything. But it can tend to monopoly, and towards this risk we policymakers must be vigilant or the wider economy suffers.

It is in capital markets that the risks of market failure have been most serious, and demand a regulatory response. A healthy, competitive, market economy is not the same as laissez faire. As you may know from my views on “casino” banking and regulatory failure in the banking sector, I believe that Member States and the EU Institutions have to work together to reform financial services. I’m grateful to Sharon Bowles for her leadership in the European Parliament on this issue.

I am anxious that these issues should not be drowned out by a row over the European budget. I have to sound the alarm here. At a time when national governments, including mine, are having to make very painful cuts in public spending, no one can understand why the European budget is not being subjected to the same discipline. There is a big backlash on the way, not only in the UK. Can I plead with you to tackle this issue sensibly? Any sense that the European Parliament and Commission are not acutely sensitive to this issue will be seriously damaging.

Our new Coalition Government has engaged positively with Europe in a way which has caused some pleasant surprise. That is not just the influence of the LibDems. Our Conservative colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, are realistic too. We all recognize that our economic fate is inextricably linked with the rest of Europe. We want Europe to work; to put aside all quarrels; and make common cause to deal with the massive economic problems which we now face.

“Making a 10% reduction in emissions in just one year needs all departments to make a contribution and in particular staff need to play their part in building a greener government.”

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne today welcomed a scheme which will see Government departments compete with each other over cutting energy use.

A live league table will show how individual departments are progressing in the government’s aim to reduce carbon emissions from central Government departments by 10% in a year.

“Whitehall must lead the way if we are to inspire the public to reduce their energy use,” Mr Huhne said.

“This challenge underlines the urgency of tackling emissions and introduces some healthy competition to bring out innovative ideas.

“Making a 10% reduction in emissions in just one year needs all departments to make a contribution and in particular staff need to play their part in building a greener government.”

“The increases to the national minimum wage this year are appropriate for the economic climate. They will strike a balance between helping the lowest paid whilst at the same time not jeopardising their employment.”

Employment relations minister Ed Davey has confirmed that the national minimum wage will increase by 13p an hour to £5.93 from today.

A new hourly rate of £2.50 will also be introduced from today for apprentices, who previously did not qualify for a statutory wage. The age threshold for paying the adult rate will be reduced from 22 to 21, giving an estimated 50,000 people a pay rise of more than 20%.

Mr Davey said: “Responsible employers should make themselves aware of the new rates that come into effect today. The increases to the national minimum wage this year are appropriate for the economic climate. They will strike a balance between helping the lowest paid whilst at the same time not jeopardising their employment.

“The Low Pay Commission estimates that around 970,000 people stand to benefit from these increases.”

The government has also announced that employers who deliberately flouted minimum wage laws will be publicly named under a new scheme.

Mr Davey added: “Bad publicity can be a powerful weapon in the fight against employers who try to cheat their workers and their competitors. Their reputation can be badly damaged if they are seen to be flouting the law.”

These are challenging times for young people and those who work with them. Almost one million young people are not in employment, education or training and the continuing economic crisis is placing strain on all aspects of family life, but just as demand for support for young people grows, some of the services set up to help them are coming under threat.

Cuts in public spending are forcing local authorities and charities to make tough decisions about the support they provide to young people, and as services for young people are afforded little protection under existing law, vital initiatives from youth counselling to youth clubs to detached youth projects find themselves at the front of the line for cuts.

That’s why CYP Now is launching the For Youth’s Sake campaign. The campaign aims to highlight the invaluable role young people’s services play in communities and raise awareness of how such services cannot be lost without consequence. It will show how services such as youth clubs are not places where young people just go to hang out, but are a vital point of entry for a range of support from sexual health to careers advice. They are the ultimate prevention and early intervention services that help to turn around young lives and save taxpayers money.

You can read more about the campaign from Children and Young People Now at http://tinyurl.com/2wuuqcm

According to a damning report from Ofsted, the youth justice system in England is failing to prepare young offenders in custody for the outside world.

The report, entitled “Transition through detention and custody – Arrangements for learning and skills for young people in custodial or secure settings“, reveals that assessment of young offenders’ skills, aspirations and learning needs is frequently poor, and preparation for independent living when they leave custody was also assessed as minimal.

Amongst the  other problems highlighted was a failure to transfer personal information from schools to detention centres, and the flow of information about young offenders’ education when they moved within the secure estate.

Secure facilities and youth offending teams were criticised for not developing strong links with schools, colleges and employers.

Ofsted chief Inspector Christine Gilbert said:

“Young people moving through the youth justice system need well co-ordinated education, training and support if they are to reintegrate into the community.

“Too often, information about young people entering and leaving secure establishments is not good enough to enable organisations to plan effectively to meet their needs.”

The Youth Justice Board, councils and youth offending teams are being urged to improve their communication and systems for transferring information.

This includes councils developing a “national statutory plan,” for each young offender. This would ensure that their education and preparation for the outside world is seamless as they progress through the criminal justice system.

The report was based on inspections of 23 facilities, including secure children’s homes, between May 2008 and June 2009. Ofsted also looked at inspection reports from all 139 youth offending teams.

Sir Paul Ennals, chief executive of NCB said:

“This report provides us with an opportunity to make sure the education and training of young people in custody receives the attention and investment it merits.

“We need to invest in these young people, who are often from troubled and complicated backgrounds, when they are ‘inside’, to prevent them from coming back and costing the country more.

“Offender education measures, which received cross-party support in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, may help to address shortfalls identified in the Ofsted report. We want to ensure the positive impact these changes will have are recognised by the new government and implemented in full by local authorities.”

Liberal Democrat Euro MP Liz Lynne hosted a top level meeting by health campaign groups and experts in Brussels today to discuss sharing the best aspects of national cancer control plans for a Europe-wide assault on the killer disease.

The meeting of MEPs Against Cancer at the European Parliament brought together MEPs from different parties, cancer charities and public health experts from around the EU.

West Midlands region MEP Liz Lynne, who is Vice President of MEPs Against Cancer, said: “I am delighted that we have relaunched MEPs Against Cancer in the Parliament with such strong support from health campaigners and public health professionals.

“Today’s meeting focused on how we can strengthen ties between governments, the European Parliament and Commission with a focus on sharing best practice from different countries.

“There is a huge variation in the way health services tackle this terrible disease around EU countries and there is massive scope for learning from the most successful diagnosis and treatment programmes.

“I also reported on the success we achieved earlier this year in getting the Written Declaration on Breast Cancer adopted by the Parliament, which called for major improvements in breast cancer screening.

“I will be continuing my work with the Breast Cancer Coalition during Breast Cancer Awareness Week in October. We need to keep the pressure up in a number of areas to encourage governments and health agencies to pool their expertise and knowledge.

“It sounds obvious but so often good ideas and success stories are not taken up in other European countries. MAC brings together Euro MPs from many different parties who are working together to address this.

“Today’s meeting ended with an inspiring discussion by experts from all over Europe on how we could improve cancer treatment programmes without necessarily spending huge amounts of money.”

This autumn, Liberal Democrat Childrens’ Minister Sarah Teather will publish a green paper which outlines the government’s approach to improving the support for children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) and disabilities.

The consultation document states that too many children and young people with SEN or disabilities are failed by services, and in light of the imminent spending review, a more cohesive approach is needed.

The proposed principles for the green paper include greater transparency for parents so they know exactly what SEN provision is available and how their child will be supported; better value from SEN services; less bureaucracy; and the involvement of parents in the planning and delivery of SEN services.

Sarah Teather is keen to hear where improvements in government policy can be made from those directly affected by it.  Views are sought from parents, young people, practitioners and professionals, and anyone else who has experience with SEN or disability.When is the deadline?  Views must be submitted no later than 15 October.

Read more on the consultation HERE.

In response to the recent Ofsted report on special educational needs, Sarah Teather said:

 “Ofsted’s report presents some challenging but familiar criticisms of the system supporting children with special educational needs (SEN) and disability. It is clear that we have a consensus on some of the issues with the SEN system.  Now I want to work with parents, charities, teachers and other organisations to find a consensus on the solutions.

“I have launched a call for contributions to the Government’s SEN and disability Green Paper, which will focus first and foremost on meeting families’ needs. Children with SEN and disabilities should have the provision they need to succeed and parents should not feel they have to battle the system to get help. Improving diagnosis and assessment will be central to our commitment to overhaul the system to ensure families get the appropriate support at the right time.”

Which? consumer group have claimed that householders are facing an energy tariff lottery because of a lack of transparency around deals offered to consumers.

Which? said consumers faced a “game of chance” trying to secure the best deal with as many as 89 different tariffs on offer to the typical household.

It found that many consumers are also subject to lengthy contracts that lock in customers, unreasonable time lags between switching suppliers and late notification of price changes.

A survey of 2,000 consumers by the group found that one in three thought energy companies could not be trusted to sell them the right tariff.

An associated investigation by the group found a £151 difference between two versions of EDF Energy’s Online Saver tariff, while one Which? member found he could save £400 a year by moving to his supplier’s cheapest tariff.

Although suppliers regularly updated their deals, none actively informed customers that a newer, cheaper version of their tariff was available, Which? said.

The group is campaigning for minimum standards for energy tariffs to be part of the upcoming Energy Bill to be introduced before Christmas.

Which? chief executive Peter Vicary-Smith said:

“Energy doesn’t have to be complicated, but the practices we’ve uncovered mean many people are paying more than they need to.

“Energy suppliers must make it easier for their customers to find the best deals. This means guaranteeing that customers get the price they sign up to, giving advanced warning of price hikes and telling people when better deals are available.

“The upcoming Energy Bill is an opportunity for the Government to set minimum standards for tariffs so that consumers can be confident that they are getting the best deal for their energy.”

Responding to the recent Which? research into energy tariffs, Audrey Gallacher, Head of Energy Policy at Consumer Focus, said:

“The array of energy tariffs is just mindboggling for consumers trying to get the best deal. Suppliers are increasingly tempting people with special offers that may not last. Suppliers are also locking people into longer deals, often without being completely upfront about how costly it could be to cancel.

“There is no justification for having such a confusing array of complex tariffs. We would urge consumers looking for the best offer to use an impartial price comparison website to see if they are on the cheapest deal and if not, switch.”

Care Services Minister Paul Burstow has given his backing for the launch of a new campaign that will warn people in North East Lincolnshire about the early signs of lung cancer and encourage them to get checked.

North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus has been awarded funding by the Department of Health to roll out a campaign to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of lung cancer using its successful ‘collaborative’ approach.

Julie Grimmer, cancer programme manager for North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus said: “It’s excellent news we’ve received funding to specifically raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of lung cancer locally.   

“We will be using the same kind of model involving members of the local community acting as cancer champions raising awareness in their local area. This is a tried and tested method that we know works since we have used it successfully to raise awareness of symptoms of prostate, cervical and bowel cancer.   

“With lung cancer we know that in common with other cancers early presentation of symptoms can make a positive difference, which is why this funding will be so valuable.   

“We’re looking forward to starting work on this new campaign and will be holding a launch event in November.”

Paul Burstow said:
“Cancer affects us all. We all have a story of someone we love battling the disease. Our aim is simple — we want to save many more lives and achieve cancer survival rates among the best in the world.

“In England we are lagging behind European countries when it comes to the common but big killer cancers such as breast, bowel and lung.   

“The NHS is spending at European levels but still not delivering European cancer survival rates. We know that the earlier cancer is diagnosed, the better the outlook. That’s why North East Lincolnshire’s campaign will help local people to be more alert to the early signs and symptoms of lung cancer and encourage them to seek medical advice as soon as possible.”

Cancer Research UK’s executive director of communications and information Sarah Lyness said:
“We’ve made great strides in improving cancer survival with rates doubling over the last 40 years. But we often diagnose cancer late in this country so we welcome this campaign to raise awareness of the signs of key cancers and to encourage people to seek help if they notice unusual changes.

“Encouraging people to seek help from their doctor if they suspect cancer is the crucial first step in getting a speedy cancer diagnosis. GPs also need to recognise symptoms and refer for diagnosis appropriately and treatment must follow as quickly as possible. We hope this campaign will encourage people to get that little niggle checked out. It could save their life.”