How Labour councils are backing small businesses

The party's councillors are demonstrating the results that an active government strategy can achieve for business, jobs and growth.

While the Labour Party is out of office nationally, there is still much we can do to support Britain’s small businesses, and we take this responsibility very seriously.

Across the country, Labour councils and councillors are often the first point of access for small businesses seeking support. There are nearly 650,000 businesses active in areas covered by Labour authorities and this figure is set to grow as we seek to win control of more councils this May.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, with nearly 90 per cent of people moving from unemployment into employment doing so through a small business. If we help these businesses to survive and thrive we will be taking a huge step towards tackling the unemployment crises as well.

In his first conference speech as leader, Ed Miliband expressed his determination for Labour to become the party of small business for just these reasons. We want to see more people setting up and working in business and believe that they reflect our values as the engines of social mobility and challengers of the status quo.

Labour councils across the country are playing a huge role in demonstrating how the next One Nation Labour government will champion and support small businesses and encourage growth in every area.

This is why I have recently published a report - Labour Councils: Backing Business - showcasing some of this excellent and innovative work. The report was produced in association with the Labour Group on the Local Government Association and features a report from every region of England and Wales, including ones by unitary, district and second tier authorities. This builds on last year’s launch of the Labour Councillors Business Network – bringing together Labour councillors from across the country to share ideas, disseminate best practice and develop new thinking.

Nationally, Labour are looking at how government can use procurement smartly to deliver for British business. When one in every seven pounds of GDP is spent by government it is the largest lever we can pull to support UK firms. The report demonstrates how Labour councils are already pulling this lever locally.

Vale of Glamorgan and Merthyr Tydfil Councils describe how they have developed a smartphone app to alert local small businesses to new tenders and explain the process to them and City of Manchester Council explain how they have re-written their tender guidelines to boost local jobs and businesses and developed a website portal for local businesses to use.

Small businesses often tell me that it is hard to find young people with the skills they need and the Labour Small Business Taskforce is looking at how we can equip people leaving education with these skills. These examples show how constructive partnerships between local authorities and businesses can help to deliver this.

Reading Council describe how they secured funding from the O2 Future Fund to develop a "one-stop shop" smart phone app and related social media tools to match the right young people with the right businesses. Stoke-on-Trent’s JET scheme is also highlighted. This connects businesses and unemployed people and continues to support both parties once they have been placed together. Plymouth Council also describe the success of their 1000 Club which encouraged 1,000 local companies to employ a local young person each. Partnership between councils and business can also have many other positive results.

Durham County Council describes how it persuaded Hitachi, a large local employer, to incorporate local small businesses into the local supply chain. Kirklees Council sets out its Innovation Voucher Scheme which offers local businesses grants to improve their efficiency and has lead to rapid growth amongst local firms and the highest rate of private-sector job creation in the West Midlands. The London Borough of Merton reports on how it secured funding from a new major supermarket arriving in the area for shop improvement grants for smaller neighbouring shops.

The report also highlights the importance of having a clear vision and brand to attract inward investment, with Stevenage Borough Council describing how their inward investment campaign “Where Imagination Takes Hold” reached a television audience of six million people. Nottingham City Council also describes how it established an effective cluster of businesses in the new technology sector, called the “Creative Quarter”. This is now a rapidly growing small business hub.

These reports, along with further short contributions from over twenty other Labour councils in the pamphlet, are fantastic evidence of the results that an active government strategy can achieve for business, jobs and growth. They represent a gold mine of ideas for other councils across the country and will also help Labour groups seeking to win office to develop strong manifestos with sound business policies.

Toby Perkins is Labour MP for Chesterfield and shadow minister for small business

Toby Perkins is Labour MP for Chesterfield and shadow minister for small business

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.