That this House has considered e-petition 125475 relating to the Local Government Pension Scheme.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I appreciate that, on the face of it, the motion is about the corporate governance of local authority pension funds in England and Wales, and the interaction with central Government in certain circumstances, but it is also about infrastructure investment in a broad sense. In introducing the debate, I am minded that it is about local authority schemes in England and Wales, but it forms part of a wider debate on corporate governance and infrastructure investment globally. Indeed, there are important initiatives in that regard in Scotland. The primary reason I am introducing the debate is in my capacity as a member of the Petitions Committee, but I should also note that I am the Scottish National party spokesperson on pensions.
On 23 September, new regulations affecting local government pension schemes were laid before the House and they come into force in just a few days' time, on 1 November. To put that in context, we are talking about a very large market in the UK. According to the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board, as of 2015 local authority schemes held £217 billion of assets, across 91 local authority pension funds that have 5 million members.
We should welcome the principle of infrastructure investment and pooled funds, but we also need to recognise the debate in the overall context of pension funds. Of course, across the pension fund landscape, there is a desire for growing diversification; and there is the issue of low returns from Government bonds, which affects many pension funds, and the questions of whether they go into deficit and how they meet their future liabilities. In that regard, the debate about infrastructure investment is important, and the costs and benefits, and the potential returns, of pooling local authority pension funds are worth considering.
Other countries, most notably Canada, have already embraced those challenges and have done so with what is perhaps a more effective corporate governance model than the one we have today in the United Kingdom.
Previously, I served as my party's shadow Pensions Minister and I was struck by the concern of people I met, particularly scheme members, about where and how their own funds were invested. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the wishes of scheme members that should be paramount in any corporate governance model to which he is referring?
Absolutely. I found myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman many times when we were on our respective Front Benches and it is good to see him here for this debate today. I agree with him because the funds belong to the 5 million scheme members. They are their funds and it is about their future. We should remember what a pension is—a pension is deferred income.
When someone is making that contribution, of course they should have a say. That is why I referred to the corporate governance model in Canada. One of the things I will go on to talk about today is a carrot-and-stick approach from the Government, but there has to be a consensus and I am concerned about the Government's ability to intervene in local authority pension schemes. Although I understand and support, in broad terms, what the Government are doing in promoting pooled funds and infrastructure investment, it has to be done in partnership with the local authority pension funds.
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and agree with much of what he has said and indeed with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds).
I, too, have been contacted by many members of the local scheme and by representatives of Unison, the trade union, who have great concerns about the undemocratic way in which they see the process going forward, and indeed concerns about the process that the Government have used. Whatever their individual views might be on where investment should or should not go, and on whether that is for economic, financial or ethical reasons, the process seems to them to be fundamentally undemocratic.
Again, I find myself in agreement with that. The Government should reflect on the consultation that is taking place and, hopefully, on the voices that will be raised today, because they have to take on board that, in making the changes that they are talking about, they need that wide body of support.
I will give way in a second but I want to make a point. We need to have a wider discussion about how we will get an attractive return on investment, not only in the local authority pension schemes but in defined-benefit schemes around the land. We know the situation we are in. Because of quantitative easing, or largely because of quantitative easing, yields on Government gilts are low and will not give us the kind of return that we have been used to, so there is a real issue about where we will get the investment returns in future.
I will give way in a moment but I want to finish the point. It is important, therefore, that we have the debate about infrastructure investment. There is an important opportunity, but that opportunity must be seen by local pension schemes as being about investing in their local economy. The Government have to think very carefully about that inter-relationship.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I agree with everything that he has said, and with the comments of one or two of my colleagues.
There is another issue to consider when we talk about the ability of local authorities to invest in various assets for pension schemes. We can have an ethical foreign policy but local authorities must be unethical in their investments, which is a contradiction. I am thinking particularly of cluster bombs and things like that. In the west midlands, a pension scheme might not want to invest in companies that manufacture cluster bombs but has to do so because the Government say so.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and he makes an interesting point. We must have the wider debate about sustainability and ethical investment. There are certainly very attractive funds that exist in the area of sustainability, corporate social responsibility and so on, and it is very important that local authorities are allowed to have the debate about what is in their members' best interests. They must be able to satisfy them that they are acting in their interests. It is entirely legitimate for pension schemes to have a debate about what they consider to be ethical investments, and they should be allowed to pursue them provided that they can demonstrate that they are acting in the best interests of their members.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on opening this debate. Further to an earlier intervention, we can all see some benefit from the proposed pooling arrangements, but we must also be cognisant that there can be risks, or a concentration of risks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be trade union representation on the governance structures for the pooling in order to stand up for members' interests?
Very simply, yes, I agree. Stakeholders and trade unions are a very important part of the debate. We must also look at the training that is given to trustees in that regard, so that they can discharge their responsibilities fully, and indeed the important role that advisers play. In some senses, we have perhaps rushed these changes, rather than stood back and tried to get something on which I hope we can build consensus.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As chairman of the local government unions, I led negotiations on the local government pension scheme; I campaigned to defend the local government pension scheme; and I worked with the scheme, at both national and local level, on investment strategy. It is absolutely right, commensurate with what we always sought to do through the scheme, that we have ethical investment, that we encourage infrastructure investment and that we look at sensible pooling arrangements. However, the first obligation of a pension scheme is to its members, to deliver to those loyal, long-serving public servants the best possible retirement. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is not only illegitimate but potentially unlawful for the Government to seek to impose their will on 1 million workers and their pension scheme, and that the best thing to do would be to go back to the drawing board, sit down with the trade unions and negotiate a sensible way forward?
Again, I find myself in complete agreement. The hon. Gentleman is correct and there is an argument that what the UK Government have done is perhaps in contravention of European law. I will come to that point a little later.
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fine way in which he has approached this important debate and got it going. This is an important question. In the 1960s, an ex-Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, forced through a report on the financial institutions, which revealed that over 70%—I think it was 74% at the time—of the FT share index was owned by pension funds. That shows how important this issue is.
To go back to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, there is a question about the value of gilts and bonds. I do not think it is just about that—it is also about the violation of the rights of individual pension-holders. The Government pay the money over in the first place, then take it back and say, "We'll allow you to have this, but only if we decide how it's spent". That has got to be stopped.
Order. We are having a lot of interventions. This is a three-hour debate, so if people want to make long interventions, I would love to hear them give a speech instead. There is no need for long interventions, Sir Alan.
Thank you, Sir Edward. Again, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), because, as I mentioned, the funds belong to the scheme-owners—those who are working in local authorities that are engaged in that way. It rather ill behoves the Government to seek to interfere in the governance of the funds if they are acting in the best interests of their members—that is the test. That is why it is important for the Government listen to the debate, reflect and perhaps come back with some new thinking.
The whole infrastructure issue is important. I think we all recognise that we have to build capacity in our economies. We have all heard the debate about being left behind. It is absolutely necessary that local authority pension funds in the north of England, the midlands and my own country of Scotland play their part. Each local authority area must make its own determination as to what is right and invest in local schemes—social housing, perhaps—for the benefit of the community. At the same time, they should invest for the benefit of the pension schemes. It is about democratic accountability and investment opportunities. It should not be too complicated.
I urge the Government carefully to consider what has been done in Ontario and Quebec. They have been able to build consensus because they have not had the same compulsion and the Government in Canada cannot use the big stick against local authorities.
That local democratic accountability, which many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, is the nub of the matter.
The briefing also states that the Department for Communities and Local Government has been considering how to "achieve economies of scale" and, as has been mentioned, pooling can lead to reduced costs and enhanced returns. The principle is fine and is to be lauded. However, it has become clear that the Government are going to use the stick approach as well as that of the carrot. If subtle inducement does not work, the Government could intervene by directing local authorities to invest in a certain way or by the Secretary of State exercising control. If we are to support local democracy throughout the United Kingdom, that cannot be right, and I can understand why local authorities might be alarmed.
The hon. Gentleman is totally right about how undemocratic the measure is. Is there not a double jeopardy as well? Should the Government not be mindful of the fact that if they direct a fund to behave in a particular way and the investment goes wrong, they themselves will be liable? Do they not have to remember Equitable Life?
Order. This is a very interesting debate on local government pensions and I know that Mr Blackford, who is a consummate parliamentary performer, will want to get straight back to the point, and away from Mr Maxwell, won't he?
I am grateful for that advice, Sir Edward, and will move on. I was trying to put across the point that, regarding the Government interfering in local government pension schemes, their track record on pensions is not something I would see as commendable.
Unison has argued that investment decisions should be made by their funds and their members. I agree. Let us remember that the pension funds we are talking about are members' funds. The Local Government Association has also said that there is even the risk of the regulations and the Secretary of State infringing European law on Government intervention in pension fund investment—a point that was made earlier. I find myself, not for the first time, on the side of European law and against the Government.
I do not think anyone here would object to that but, having given local authorities that clear mandate, we need to see them investing under the conditions set for them and in the best interests of the members, without interference from Government.
Is it not important that there is full transparency in respect of those costs so that everyone—scheme members and the public—can see precisely what is being charged to members?
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that should be seen in the wider context of information that should be given to plan holders, including those in the state pension scheme. All potential pensioners should be given an A4 sheet detailing their entitlements, backed up by transparency about the charges for all the schemes invested in. There is more work to be done.
That is illuminating. As a number of us have said, we are talking about plan holders' money. Yes, there must be regulation and oversight, but the Government are hardly a neutral participant in the process and they must think again and learn from best practice elsewhere.
Earlier this year, new legislation came into force in Quebec, which has been framed as a measure that potentially ensures that costly defined-benefit plans are sustainable in the long run. We should consider having that here. Under the legislation, the province no longer requires defined-benefit plans to fund themselves based on short-term assumptions about their own finances and market volatility. Instead, they need to fund themselves based only on long-term, less conservative assumptions. The law, which aims to reduce contribution volatility for employers and thus make defined-benefit plans more sustainable, is the first of its kind in Canada. The changes will be particularly supportive when it comes to longer-term infrastructure investment. That is the kind of debate that we ought to have in this country.
The e-petition motion, and the changes to the governance of pension schemes, relate solely to England and Wales, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that there is active engagement on the topic of local authority investment in infrastructure in Scotland, where responsibility is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP-led Scottish Government are committed to changing pension scheme regulations to ensure that they are not a barrier to local government pension schemes investing in infrastructure, and they are working with the scheme advisory board to achieve that. We in Scotland realise that there needs to be more of a balance between encouraging that approach and paying due regard to the responsibility of scheme managers to invest pension fund moneys in accordance with the scheme managers' fiduciary duty. The Scottish Government are committed to achieving that delicate balance.
The discussion of pension scheme investment takes place in a wider context, which includes activities centred on the cities and a major programme of infrastructure investment. Cities and their regions are key drivers of our economy and the Scottish Government are committed to working with all our cities to unlock investment, whether individually, collectively through a city deal, through one of the Scottish Government's devolved initiatives to stimulate growth and deliver infrastructure investment, or through a combination of all those measures.
It seems to me that it is not only about the democratic right of local authorities to pursue their choices, but also, exactly as the hon. Gentleman is saying, about giving them the kind of fiscal skills that can only help in the furtherance of their city deals. For the Government to try to quash both those objectives seems wholly perverse.
I again find myself wholly in agreement with a Member. I am not trying to lecture the Chamber on the things we are getting right in Scotland, but the Government in London could benefit from the kind of collaborative thinking we have developed, which is very much in line with what the hon. Gentleman said.
The fiduciary duty placed on local government pension schemes to act in the interests of the beneficiaries of the funds has to be the underlying principle of investment strategies and has to govern investment decisions. The responsible investment of pension funds must always be prioritised over unstable and risky investment. It is up to local authorities to ensure that they invest the funds to achieve the best outcomes for employees, trustees and sustainable growth. I stress that it is for the local authorities to determine that, and not for central Government to determine for them.
There have been some excellent examples in Scotland of sustainable investment in local housing projects delivering much needed long-term infrastructure that benefits ordinary people. For example, the Falkirk local government pension scheme fund awarded fund manager Hearthstone Investments £30 million to invest in social and affordable housing in Scotland. More than 300 affordable homes are expected to be delivered, with the Scottish Government providing an initial investment of more than £6 million towards 126 social homes in Falkirk and Clackmannanshire. That is the kind of collaborative work that we need across the United Kingdom.
Rather than droning on, I will wind up at this point. On the basis of the consultation that the Government have seen and on the basis of what I expect the Minister will hear this afternoon, I ask that they go back and think again. They need to try to get back to a position of consensus and collaboration with local authority pension schemes in England and Wales.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on the way he has presented his arguments and on giving us the opportunity to debate this issue.
I will be brief. I had a letter from a constituent—it was an email, to be more precise. She raised three strong points which I intend to make today. Her first point was that she did not consider the Government's proposals ethical. I will explain why she said that in a moment. Her second point, which has already been made by the hon. Gentleman and others, was that the proposals are undemocratic. Finally, she questioned the integrity of the consultation process that the Government carried out. I will take each of those points in turn.
Taken together, those three points provide a fairly damning critique of what has taken place. In light of that, I hope that the Government will reconsider their proposals. I should conclude by apologising; I cannot stay for the whole debate, as I have other responsibilities outside of Westminster Hall. This debate is on a serious issue, and I hope the Government take it seriously.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) in congratulating the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on the way he introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I will concentrate on three areas: local decision making; scrutiny of Government proposals; and how the regulations and the guidance attached to them relate to broader UK policy.
As other Members have said, local decision making comes down to whether pension fund scheme members and local authorities are allowed their say in how pensions are invested, rather than simply being overruled by Government. It is also about the ability of those responsible for public institutions to exercise the judgments they are appointed to exercise within the law. In the case of local authorities, that involves accountability not only to their electorates, but to scheme members. In their role as pension trustees, they have to be able to make judgments in line with their fiduciary duties. Funds must be invested in the best interest of their members, as European directives lay out, and I hope that will not change, although I find it difficult to understand how the regulations are compatible with those directives.
If Ministers are serious about being committed to more local decision-making and giving powers back to local areas, it follows that investment decisions should be made by local authorities, fund trustees and members, not by a Secretary of State with a broadened set of powers of intervention. That is where concerns arise, however, along with concerns about the degree of scrutiny Parliament is being allowed over the issue. That is pretty alarming given the negative responses received as part of the consultation. Indeed, today's debate is only happening at all because of a public petition being acted upon and allowed to happen by Members of this House. It is not a result of Government initiative or Government action.
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. Does he agree that it is rather shameful that the measure was introduced through a statutory instrument, rather than with a debate in the House of Commons in which all Members could properly participate?
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I hope it is not lost in the debate. The Minister will respond to the debate, and I hope he will address that point specifically when he winds up, although I am afraid that Ministers have form here. It seems that the changes—or at least some of them, and some of what is written in the regulations and the guidance attached—appear to be allied to new rules on public procurement that were announced in February without any parliamentary scrutiny up to that point.
The most we knew about either of those changes was a highly partisan press release issued at the Conservative party conference in October 2015. Indeed, the formal announcement from the Government on the local government procurement changes did not even happen in this country. Instead, it happened at a joint press conference by the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was then at the Cabinet Office, and the Prime Minister of Israel. It took successive applications for a Westminster Hall debate to enable us to find out what those regulations meant. The ministerial reply to that debate left a number of questions unanswered, and it took more correspondence back and forth before a Cabinet Office letter to me on 4 May finally clarified that some of the actual changes being proposed were a lot less dramatic than the rhetoric we had witnessed in the Conservative party press release and the Minister's joint press conference.
in no way overrides UK Government policy and guidance on illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, nor fetters administering authorities' ability to follow that broader policy. I ask because the UK Government have a long-standing and clear foreign policy position that is bipartisan in recognising the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Government's current guidance, issued to UK businesses, does not encourage trade or financial involvement with the settlements. A recent statement by all EU member states "unequivocally and explicitly" makes the distinction between Israel and all territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
"There are flexibilities to enable individual authorities to exclude suppliers that are corrupt, guilty of misconduct, in breach of various international laws and so on".
Will the Minister confirm that the various international laws referred to would include the Geneva conventions?
When the right hon. Member for West Suffolk replied to me in relation to the procurement issue, he said that all such decisions have to be made on a case by case basis, which has of course always been the situation; there is nothing new there. However, will the Minister today clarify that all the assurances I was given in relation to local government procurement, extracted from the Government in the letter of 4 May sent by the right hon. Gentleman, also apply in respect of the 2016 local government pension scheme regulations and guidance notes that we are debating today?
"Increase rather than decrease the potential for local discretion in decision-making".
I am pleased to hear that. I have difficulty relating it to what is in the guidance notes and regulations, but I hope he is right about that, and I hope that any interpretations of the regulations will reflect that statement that was made on the record by a Cabinet Minister. I hope the Minister today will confirm that statement in relation to the concerns that I and others have raised today and will no doubt raise during the debate.
I have asked the Minister specific questions about specific parts of the regulations and guidance notes and about the correspondence that I have had with the Government on this matter. I am sure he has been fully briefed and will be able to give full answers to all the questions. If there are areas where he cannot give clear answers, I hope he will respond to all Members in writing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Let me start by referring back to my earlier intervention. As national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, I was chair of the trade union side that conducted a series of negotiations on the local government pension scheme, and I worked very closely with the local government pension scheme at a national level on a range of the issues that have been referred to in this debate.
Who are the people we are talking about? They are the care workers who look after the vulnerable, the disabled and the elderly. They are the Karens, whom I met at Osborne nursery school but two weekends ago—outstanding education assistants who help kids get the best possible start in life. They are the dustmen, the refuse collectors and the people who go out and keep our streets clean—my uncle Mick, who lived with me until he sadly died, was a street cleaner. They are social workers who take care of, among others, looked-after children who badly need the support that social services and children's services can deliver.
The millions who depend upon the local government pension scheme, which is fundamentally a good scheme, include not just those who are directly employed but those such as bus workers, who were originally directly employed by local government bus companies and have now been transferred but are still in the local government pension scheme. There are tens of thousands of contractors' employees who enjoy what is called admitted body status. I know that because I negotiated admitted body status to ensure that, if those workers are transferred to the private sector, they remain in the local government pension scheme. The pension scheme is a good one. It is fundamentally one of the most democratic schemes in the country. I have often argued over the years that the voice of workers should be heard louder in relation to some of the local administrations of the pension scheme.
I have been personally involved not just in the negotiations. I have, for example, addressed two conferences for the scheme at national level on the issues of collaboration to ensure ethical investment, which is absolutely a legitimate concern, and infrastructure investment. The then national chair of the local government pension scheme, Kieran Quinn, said, "Why are we investing in light transport in Taiwan when we should be investing more in developing infrastructure here in Britain?" Of course, that is absolutely right.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) referred to housing. I remember opening a housing development with the leader of Manchester City Council, where local government pension scheme investment was key to building hundreds of affordable homes. The objectives of having an ethical approach and greater investment in infrastructure are absolutely legitimate—so, too, is the move towards pooling. We have got to get it right, but in my time we used to argue for pooling and greater collaboration to make more effective investments.
What is fundamentally wrong about the proposal is that the Government are elbowing to one side the world of local government and telling millions of pensioners how their pensions might best be delivered.
Surely, it is legitimate for a political party in a local authority administration to seek from the electorate a mandate on how it will invest in its pension funds. That is what the Government are interfering with.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. He has a background in Unison—one of the major local government unions. It is simply wrong for Whitehall to tell millions of pensioners and town halls what they should do in the future. It is also potentially unlawful, and a very strong case was set out earlier to that effect.
We have shared objectives: a greater ethical approach, infrastructure investment and pooling. Why do the Government have to continue to blunder down this path? There was an extraordinary response to the consultative process, and people overwhelmingly said, "No, no!" The Government should now, even at this stage, listen and get back into discussions with the scheme itself and the local government unions.
How do the Government square their approach over the local government pension scheme with two stated public policy objectives? The first is localism. I remember leading for the Labour party in the endless negotiations when the Localism Bill was going through Parliament in 2011. Power to the people? This is more Leninism than localism.
The second objective is this. The Government have had a damascene conversion. Not since Saul fell off his horse on the road to Tarsus have a Government made such a change. Historically the enemy of working people, they are now posing as the friend of working people—the champion of working people—but what they intend to do is to say to millions of working people, "No matter what you think, no matter what your concerns are, we are going to tell you how your pension scheme should be invested in the future." That simply cannot be right.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for securing this debate, and I thank hon. Members who have articulated their opinions clearly on this issue.
We have heard about a variety of interesting options for and aspects of the upcoming changes, but the nub of the matter is that 5 million people rely on the local government pension scheme. Like other people who have pensions, they rely on their pension trustees—the pension boards—to invest their funds in their best interests. To me, that is a simple principle—I am sure everybody can understand it—so why has it taken more than 100,000 people to sign a petition on something so obvious? It is obvious to everyone that local government means local. Pension schemes belong to those people; they have paid in, so they should have the right to say how that money is invested—no more and no less.
Despite that, 98% of respondents to the Government's consultation rejected the proposals. The Government have ridden roughshod over those views. They tabled in Parliament a statutory instrument that will become law on 1 November. It comprises a new set of local government investment regulations under which the Government can instruct local government pension scheme administrators on how to invest their money. With no debate in the House to help to influence the measure and warn of any potential pitfalls, the pensions of 5 million scheme members, worth £178 billion—it is the fourth-largest pot in the world—will be dictated to by the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) made clear, this is about people's pensions and people's lives. This is about school janitors and cleaners.
It is also about deferred pay for precisely the reason the shadow Minister outlined. Local government employees pay in, unlike other public sector pension fund members. A local government worker's pension is deferred pay.
We are in the mid-chaos of Brexit, but article 50 has yet to be triggered and we are still working under European Union directives, so we are breaking that law.
In summary, therefore, administering authorities should not pursue policies that are contrary to UK foreign or defence policy. There is, however, little or no evidence that the local government pension scheme has ever undertaken investment decisions in that way, and the Government should not be imposing their foreign and defence policies to the detriment of LGPS pensioners.
We cannot stress strongly enough that the authorities must act in the interests of members.
Why are the Government ignoring those voices? Why have the Government refused to listen? Why did they even bother to carry out a consultation, if they then ignore 98% of the results? Why are the Government not looking at everything again carefully? I fully support pooling arrangements; they are great if they get the best for the scheme members. The regulations should not be a way for the Government to borrow on the back of pensioners, or to dictate where and where not the pension fund may be invested.
Why have the Government failed to take the arrangements through the House of Commons? Because they know they are wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington spoke about localism. He was absolutely right: this is the reverse of localism; it is dictatorship. The Government have no right to interfere in people's pensions. The consultation went out and the Government, I am quite sure, felt that their proposal was a good idea, but the people who own the fund have said no. I beg the Government to listen and to put a hold on their scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for introducing this debate about investments made under the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. It provides me with the opportunity to address the significant misconceptions about Government policy that have arisen as a result of briefing from trade unions and other bodies.
Judging from the debate today, before I go on to things that people might not agree with, I think everyone agrees that the scheme members of the pension funds are the most important group involved. I want to reassure those scheme members that their pensions are certainly not at risk and that we are giving local authorities more and not less control over investments.
Before I get into the detail of the policy, I should make it clear that the LGPS is a defined-benefit scheme, in which benefits are guaranteed by statute and are not directly affected by the investment performance of individual funds. Scheme members in different local funds, each with different asset allocations and funding strategies, receive the same level of benefits based on a salary and length of scheme membership.
Investment decisions in the LGPS are not, therefore, a "gamble" with scheme members' pension rights. It is clearly the case, however, that local administering authorities should seek to maximise the returns on investments in order to limit the risk to the town hall that pensions or otherwise might pose to local council tax payers and local services. We have made it clear repeatedly that investment decisions must be taken in the best interests of scheme members and taxpayers.
but I make no apologies for the fact that we have been clear that authorities should be ambitious in developing their proposals on infrastructure investment. Investment in infrastructure is increasingly seen as a suitable option for larger pension funds with long-term liabilities.
Figures published by the LGPS advisory board in 2013 showed that only £550 million, or 0.3% of the scheme's total assets of £180 billion, were invested at that time in infrastructure. That falls some way behind other large pension funds that have elected to invest 10% to 15% in the area. It is widely recognised that infrastructure investment is good not only for investors, but for the global economy. Indeed, investing in large-scale infrastructure projects can offer a useful match with the long-term liabilities held by pension funds.
Other countries are well ahead of us in progressive thinking and it is time for the UK to step up to the challenge. In the existing investment environment, there is also even greater pressure to reduce costs and maintain or improve performance. Our work with the LGPS funds to pool their investments will save up to £300 million a year over time, thus benefiting scheme members and taxpayers alike. The larger scale of the pools will also open up new investment opportunities, such as large infrastructure projects. I am grateful for the hard work put in by elected members and officers in making pooling begin to happen. I will meet each pool over the coming weeks to discuss their plans and set out our expectations.
Nevertheless, I have been absolutely clear throughout that investment decisions are for administering authorities and that that will remain the case. There is no question, nor has there ever been, of the Government directing funds to invest in a particular way—for example, in infrastructure projects. The point about directive 41/2003 is therefore not relevant.
I find myself in agreement with much of what the Minister is saying. There is a desire for greater infrastructure investment, but the issue is getting the architecture right. If he takes away the risk of Government interference with the LGPS, he might get to a position that we could all support, but he must listen to the legitimate voices of concern.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but, as I said at the outset, we are giving local authorities more and not less control over their investments.
Will the Minister explain what happens if an LGPS fund cannot pay its pensions?
As I said earlier, the LGPS is a defined-benefit scheme, so the benefits to the pension fund participants are protected by statute. I do not think that is an issue for the people with investment in the funds. As I will explain, there is an extremely important point about how pension funds are able to invest and the additional freedom that we have provided in that respect.
I want to underline that I respect and understand the strength of feeling shown by many of the respondents to our consultation on the new LGPS investment regulations and the people who signed the petition. The proper conduct of pensions and pension investments is of deep concern to us all, as it should be. A key concern expressed by respondents to the consultation was about the power in those regulations under which the Secretary of State could, after proper consultation, intervene in the investment activities of an administering authority. It may be helpful and, I hope, reassuring if I set out the reasons that we have taken that power.
Historically, the LGPS investment regulations and the framework that they impose have sought to constrain investment decisions to minimise risk and protect the interests of scheme beneficiaries and taxpayers. More recently, however, those regulations have fallen below the standards in Europe and the private sector in the UK. Under the new investment regulations, administering authorities will be significantly more responsible and accountable for their investment decisions. Provided that authorities act reasonably within the framework provided by the regulations and guidance, they will no longer be constrained by prescription from the centre about how their assets are invested. For example, we have removed limits on the proportion of assets that may be invested in particular ways. The new regulations therefore provide authorities with much more freedom over how they invest LGPS funds and bring that scheme broadly into line with private sector schemes in that respect, and represent a landmark policy shift.
The power of intervention has been included in the new regulations as a backstop in the rare circumstances in which it may be necessary to protect the around £200 billion of assets and 5 million members of the local government pension scheme. The regulations include several safeguards to ensure that that power is used appropriately and proportionately, including full consultation with the relevant authority. The Government's response to the consultation made it clear that that power would be used only on clear evidence that an authority was failing to act in accordance with the regulations or guidance.
I want to try to be helpful. There is awful lot of concern about the power that the Government have given themselves to intervene. We understand the statutory obligations under these local authority schemes, but as a way out of that, did the Government consider giving that power not to themselves but to the Pensions Regulator?
A lot has been made of the fact that these measures are being made by statutory instrument. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 gives Ministers broad powers over the running of pension funds. That Act was scrutinised at significant length in the House. Considering the suite of powers that Ministers are given by that Act and taking into account the views of organisations such as the local government pensions scheme advisory board, the new regulations do not go anywhere near as far as they could have. I know from meeting that board that several people from administering authorities and trade unions are represented on it, and I discussed this issue with them at some length.
To pick up a few other points, the new investment regulations and guidance allow authorities to take into account non-financial factors, such as social, environmental and corporate governance considerations, when making investment decisions. However, authorities must take proper advice, act lawfully and take decisions that are in the best interests of scheme members and taxpayers. They must also act in a way that is consistent with UK foreign and defence policy.
The guidance is clear that administering authorities should not use pension policies to pursue boycotts, divestments or sanctions, except where formal legal sanctions exist and embargoes or restrictions have been put in place by the UK Government, where policy responsibility for such matters lies. We have taken the same view in our guidance on boycotts in the context of public sector procurement, which in turn is based firmly on the position in international law.
"boycotts, divestments and sanctions against foreign nations and the UK defence industry are inappropriate".
Will he clarify that action to divest pension funds from a company involved with Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories would not fall foul of that so long as it was done on a case-by-case basis?
I will address more of the hon. Gentleman's points later in my comments, but I can clarify that any such divestment must be in line with the policy of the UK Government.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned on a number of occasions the situation in Canada. We are aware that public service pension schemes in Canada have been merged, based on the fact that they are now important global investors. The Ontario teachers' pension scheme seems to be regularly wheeled out as an example. There are several Members here from the west midlands who will know Birmingham airport well, and I am aware that the Ontario teachers' pension fund has a significant investment in that airport. We see in the situation in Canada one of our drivers for pooling the LGPS funds, along with the wider need to save costs, not in terms of a direct cost saving to the Government but one that will be put back into those pension funds for the benefit of members.
I agree entirely that transparency of pension investments is important, so that all concerned can see where pension fund cash is being spent on fees and why. My Department is working closely with the scheme advisory board and others to ensure that information is clear in relation to fees charged to pension funds.
I assure hon. Members that there is an opportunity for trade union representation on pools. That is a matter for the individual pools themselves and depends on their governance arrangements, but the individual local authority members that support each scheme will have the right to be part of setting up those pooling governance arrangements, and it will therefore be their decision on whether union representatives are on the pools.
There have been extremely good examples of investment in local housing in England, as well as in Scotland, which the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned. There is a good example in Greater Manchester, where funds have been used from the Greater Manchester pension scheme. As I said, a relatively small amount of funding has gone into that type of investment hitherto, and we want to encourage pension funds and pools to increase such investment.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned the significant correspondence he had had with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). Without seeing that correspondence, it is difficult for me to answer some of his questions directly, but I will undertake to look at that correspondence and come back to him with a written response.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned overseas business risk guidance issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That guidance does apply to local government pension funds, but it is important to be clear that the Government are committed to promoting trade links and business ties with Israel and therefore the guidance strongly opposes boycotts.
Just for clarity, I mentioned nothing about trade with Israel. I mentioned overseas business risk and the FCO guidance relating to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. If the Minister wishes, I can quote from that guidance, but I am sure he knows what I am referring to. It is nothing to do with Israel; it is to do with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is covered in the guidance, and I will write to him at further length on that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification on whether local government procurement guidance applies to the LGPS. Our guidance on pension scheme investments is entirely of the same framework as the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on public procurement. Both operate within the wider framework of national and international law.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tobacco. It is our position, as is clear from our response to the consultation on investment, that decisions on matters such as whether to invest in tobacco are for individual pension funds provided that they comply with the broad principles in our guidance.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) mentioned localism. Our reforms are entirely consistent with localism. We have removed the petty, arbitrary caps on different types of investments put in place by the Opposition some years ago and given local authorities real freedom to decide how they invest their pension funds.
In summary, I reassure the House that investment decisions will remain for administering authorities. The Government are challenging local authorities to be independent and ambitious, subject to local democratic control and appropriate safeguards. We have no intention whatever of gambling with money that has been set aside to pay pensions.
I am a former trustee of a pensions scheme, and it was made clear to me on repeated occasions that the legal duties and responsibilities fell to those people around the table who were privy to all the investment information as well as the contributors to the scheme. My overriding question about the regulations and the Government's involvement in the LGPS scheme, as opposed to private schemes over which they have no direct responsibility or involvement and do not interfere, is whether LGPS trustees' rights and responsibilities are being eroded or undermined in any way. Does that set a precedent? That would concern me.
I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that the changes are in no way intended to diminish the role of individual pension funds or the people who represent members. [Interruption.] She is commenting from a sedentary position, but we will have to agree to disagree on that point, bearing in mind what I have said previously.
Apparently, you can wind up, Mr Blackford. We would not want to miss your dulcet tones.
Thank you, Sir Edward; that is very kind of you. I thank those who signed the petition and brought us here today. I think we all agree that the debate is important. There are a couple of important underlying factors, the most important of which is that there has to be local democracy and accountability.
The Opposition have spoken enthusiastically about the benefits of pooling and of local authority pension schemes investing in infrastructure on a global basis and locally within our economies, so we support the direction of travel. However, the Minister still has not really addressed—I would go as far as to say he has ignored it—what is written in the regulations, and he and the Government must reflect on that power of interference. I have tried to give them a way out, because there is a logical question: why do the Government want the powers of interference over local authority pension schemes? There is no logic for that situation.
Perhaps the Government need to go back and think, in the days that remain until those regulations come into force on 1 November, about the role that the Pensions Regulator may play. The Government need to get out of the situation and get around the table with the local authorities and the LGPS to agree that there is a fantastic opportunity for pension schemes to invest in infrastructure. They have to do that by taking away the threat of interference.
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the Government to think again. Does he agree that it would be absolutely extraordinary, having had a consultative process in which 98% of respondents objected to the Government's proposals, for the Government to say, "We know it's your pension and we know that 98% have said no, but we intend to go ahead regardless."?
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He spoke about Leninism; it is Big Brother knows best. I hope, at this late stage, that the Government reflect, so that we can get to a situation where we all support, in broad terms, what they are doing, but we can only do so with a proper governance model.


Thinking about joining the Peace Corps sometime in the future? Or maybe you're fundraising for the Make a Wish Foundation? Non-profit organizations play a big role in serving humanity on a global scale, and have a very considerable impact on world issues ranging from the environment to civil rights.
The biggest question people tend to have regarding nonprofit organizations is how employees make money. Since NPOs are "not for profit," how can they function so successfully with a full set of paid workers?
For starters, an organization may achieve "non-profit" status if it is filed as a tax-exempt corporation by the government — usually 501(c)(3) for most charitable organizations. This means that non-profits do not have to pay income taxes to the government and instead direct all of their funds towards their cause. Official non-profits are not permitted to generate revenue and must throw excess funds back into the organization, so that it too goes towards the cause. Because NPO's can't make a profit, funds for employee salaries would have to come from the money generated through donations and fundraising that are largely meant to go toward the cause. The IRS allows nonprofits to pay their employees a reasonable salary using this fundraising money, meaning that a small percentage of the money raised by these organizations does not go directly to the cause. Often, larger organizations like Greenpeace and UNICEF have a lower percentage of funds going directly to their causes since they have so many employees. This is why volunteers are so important for nonprofits; they allow the organization to function without it having to pull money from funds raised for the cause.
Because there is little regulation in terms of how nonprofits distribute the percentage of the money they are allowed to use to compensate employees, corruption is a big issue. Some CEOs are paid excessive amounts in comparison to other employees, and sometimes money is misused by employees. The Wounded Warrior scandal in 2016 is a clear example of this; staff were caught spending excessive amounts of money riding Segways to events, flying business class, and staying in expensive hotels. This causes problems for other employees whose salaries are sacrificed for the enjoyment of the higher-ups — this is how underpaying can also be a big problem with nonprofits.
Despite room for corruption, nonprofits are extremely successful in achieving their goals, and can really make a positive impact. Action Against Hunger for example reached over 1.5 million people through their nutrition programs last year and tripled the amount of children receiving treatment for malnutrition over the past 10 years. An organization called Kiva helped a woman in Zimbabwe start a farm and raise crops during a period of drought, and to send her children to school using money from a loan the organization lent her. In Bangladesh, there are countless nonprofits working to improve the condition of Rohingya refugee camps, tackling health and sanitation issues, food, and shelter.
Nonprofit organizations are a necessary part of society. They serve the purpose of supporting causes that benefit humanity and are often very successful at what they set out to do. See how you can become involved with a nonprofit in your area!


text:
World Cup special: which…
World Cup special: which stockmarkets look 'cheap'?
Our quarterly examination of market valuations coincides with the World Cup. Duncan Lamont offers some observations about market performance - and pitch performance.
Duncan Lamont, CFA
Head of Research and Analytics
As the world's football teams have been battling out for supremacy at the World Cup, so have the major equity markets been jostling for position. In both cases, results have not gone entirely to form.
While many other markets had been posting double-digit gains in the 12 months prior to the second quarter, the UK was a serial underperformer, much like the English football team. Investors had been left nursing losses. However, in a reversal to the form guide, the UK was the stand-out performer in the second quarter, matching the England football team's good run of results.
Paradoxically, concern over Brexit and weakness in the UK economy have helped UK equities by pushing down the value of the pound. This helps as over 70% of UK-listed company revenues come from overseas so a weak pound raises their value when converted into pounds.
A soaring oil price also helped, given the market's large exposure to the energy sector. The UK returned close to 10% over the quarter, trouncing the opposition in a similar manner to the English football team's 6-1 demolition of Panama. None of the US, European, Japanese and emerging equity markets managed to deliver even half that.
There have been some disappointing performances from emerging market teams at the World Cup (Argentina's whimper out of the tournament being a particular lowlight) and emerging markets themselves have also had a torrid time of late – down 3.4% in local currency terms, 7.9% in dollar terms over the quarter. US aggressive tactics on trade have had a major impact.
On the football front, fans are being forced to constantly revise their expectations. Before the tournament, not many would have predicted that at the quarter final stage, one of Sweden, England, Russia or Croatia would be a guaranteed finalist.
However, in the investing world, the recent swings have actually had relatively little impact on the relative valuations of global stockmarkets, based on the five measures we used (explained below).
Our valuations show the UK is marginally more expensive than previously and emerging markets are marginally cheaper. But neither by much. Price moves have been broadly matched by changes in fundamentals. There have also been minimal changes to any of the other major markets.
The US in our view continues to be more expensively valued but also has the strongest earnings growth outlook. Valuations for European and emerging market equities are close to their 15-year averages so look neither especially cheap nor especially expensive.
Being cheap on some measures but expensive on others, we have found the UK valuation picture to be as inconsistent as the English football team's performances at recent major tournaments. The resilience of both will soon be tested. While the UK and European markets look expensive on a cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings basis [see definition below] over the past 15 years, longer-term analysis makes them look more fairly valued. Japan is the one market which could arguably make a case for being attractively valued.
However, as we have argued previously, stockmarkets, as with football teams, do not always perform as expected. History would tell us that the better-rated teams tend to perform better at World Cups, so favouring them is a sensible long-term strategy. However, Germany and Argentina's poor showings highlight that backing teams (and stockmarkets) that look good on paper does not always work out.
A degree of humility is warranted. While football fans might find it hard to limit their risk of disappointment by backing several teams to win, investors might be wise to take this approach in their portfolios. Diversifying exposure across a number of countries may lack the excitement and potential gains from backing a single one, but it is also likely to result in less of a fall should one country or region perform badly. Football fans get a fresh shot at glory every four years, but it can take far longer for an investor to recover the losses from a misplaced investment strategy.
Past performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated.
How we have valued stockmarkets
When considering equity valuations there are many different measures that investors can turn to. Each tells a different story. They all have their benefits and shortcomings so a rounded approach which takes into account their often-conflicting messages is the most likely to bear fruit.
Forward P/E
A common valuation measure is the forward price-to-earnings multiple or forward P/E. We divide a stockmarket's value or price by the aggregate earnings per share of all the companies over the next 12 months. A low number represents better value.
An obvious drawback is that no one knows what companies will earn in future. Analysts try to estimate this but frequently get it wrong, largely overestimating and making shares seem cheaper than they really are.
Trailing P/E
This is perhaps an even more common measure. It works similarly to forward P/E but takes the past 12 months' earnings instead. In contrast to the forward P/E this involves no forecasting. However, the past 12 months may also give a misleading picture.
The cyclically-adjusted price to earnings multiple is another key indicator followed by market watchers, and increasingly so in recent years. It is commonly known as CAPE for short or the Shiller P/E, in deference to the academic who first popularised it, Professor Robert Shiller.
This attempts to overcome the sensitivity that the trailing P/E has to the last 12 month's earnings by instead comparing the price with average earnings over the past 10 years, with those profits adjusted for inflation. This smooths out short-term fluctuations in earnings.
When the Shiller P/E is high, subsequent long term returns are typically poor. One drawback is that it is a dreadful predictor of turning points in markets. The US has been expensively valued on this basis for many years but that has not been any hindrance to it becoming ever more expensive.
Price-to-book
The price-to-book multiple compares the price with the book value or net asset value of the stockmarket. A high value means a company is expensive relative to the value of assets expressed in its accounts. This could be because higher growth is expected in future.
A low value suggests that the market is valuing it at little more (or possibly even less, if the number is below one) than its accounting value. This link with the underlying asset value of the business is one reason why this approach has been popular with investors most focused on valuation, known as value investors.
However, for technology companies or companies in the services sector, which have little in the way of physical assets, it is largely meaningless. Also, differences in accounting standards can lead to significant variations around the world.
The dividend yield, the income paid to investors as a percentage of the price, has been a useful tool to predict future returns.
A low yield has been associated with poorer future returns.
However, while this measure still has some use, it has come unstuck over recent decades.
One reason is that "share buybacks" have become an increasingly popular means for companies to return cash to shareholders, as opposed to paying dividends (buying back shares helps push up the share price).
This trend has been most obvious in the US but has also been seen elsewhere. In addition, it fails to account for the large number of high-growth companies that either pay no dividend or a low dividend, instead preferring to re-invest surplus cash in the business to finance future growth.
A few general rules
Investors should beware the temptation to simply compare a valuation metric for one region with that of another. Differences in accounting standards and the makeup of different stockmarkets mean that some always trade on more expensive valuations than others.
For example, technology stocks are more expensive than some other sectors because of their relatively high growth prospects. A market with sizeable exposure to the technology sector, such as the US, will therefore trade on a more expensive valuation than somewhere like Europe. When assessing value across markets, we need to set a level playing field to overcome this issue.
One way to do this is to assess if each market is more expensive or cheaper than it has been historically.
We have done this in the table above for the valuation metrics set out above, however this information is not to be relied upon and should not be taken as a recommendation to buy/and or sell If you are unsure as to your investments speak to a financial adviser.
Finally, investors should always be mindful that past performance and historic market patterns are not a reliable guide to the future and that your money is at risk, as is this case with any investment.
See here how the latest valuations compare to previous snapshots:
How cheap are stock markets? (April 2018)
How cheap are stock markets? (December 2017)
How cheap are stock markets? (May 2017)
0 Min In focus
How the 2020 global share slump and recovery ranks in history
Which stock markets look cheap as we enter the final quarter of 2020?
The stocks that eclipsed the FAANGs

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Esoteric Breast Massage has supported me in realising that we cannot truly love, care and nurture another until we have truly loved, cared and nurtured ourselves.
This may sound simple, but the fact that so many of us women are living in complete anxiousness and exhaustion means that we have buried this innate truth beneath a pile of rubble thick with ideals, beliefs and expectations about how we should and shouldn't be as daughters, sisters, wives, partners, mothers and grandmothers.
Regular EBM sessions have allowed me to reconnect to my innate gorgeousness and helped me to see that I am love first before I am anything else, and when this quality is nurtured within me throughout my busy days nothing is insurmountable because I simply bring all that I am into all that I do.


Don't just try to manage your stress and suffering, Sadhguru explains, manage yourself instead.
Don't just try to manage your stress and suffering, Sadhguru explains, manage yourself instead. Sadhguru delves into the essence of being human and learning to live blissfully.
Shani Shingnapur Temple: Discrimination or Discretion?


text:
John S. Haller, Jr. | History | SIU
Southern Illinois University Department of History
history@siu.edu
Home / Faculty and Staff / Emeritus Faculty / John S. Haller, Jr.
John S. Haller, Jr.
Email: jhaller@siu.edu
Dr. John S. Haller, Jr., received his baccalaureate degree from Georgetown University (1962), his master's from John Carroll University (1964), and his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland (1968). Before joining SIUC in 1990, he was affiliated with Indiana University, California State University-Long Beach, and the University of Colorado. A professor of history and medical humanities, and former editor of Caduceus: A Humanities Journal for Medicine and the Health Sciences, Dr. Haller's teaching portfolio included courses in American intellectual history, Darwin and the Darwinian world, leadership and moral responsibility, and the history of medicine.
He is the author of Outcasts From Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900 (1971; 1975; 1995); The Physician and Sexuality in Victorian America (1974; 1977; 1995) with Robin Haller; American Medicine in Transition, 1830-1910 (1980); Battlefield Medicine: A History of the Military Ambulance from the Napoleonic Wars Through World War I (1993; 2011); Medical Protestants: The Eclectics in American Medicine, 1825-1939 (1994; 2012); Kindly Medicine: Physio-Medicalism in America, 1836-1911 (1997); The Making of a Medical Practice: An Illinois Case Study, 1885-1938 (1997) with Barbara Mason; A Profile in Alternative Medicine: The Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati, 1845-1942 (1999); The People's Doctors: Samuel Thomson and the American Botanical Movement, 1790-1860 (2000); The History of American Homeopathy: The Academic Years, 1820-1935 (2005); The History of American Homeopathy: From Rational Medicine to Holistic Health Care (2009; 2012); Samuel Thomson and the Poetry of Botanical Medicine, 1810-1860 (2009); Swedenborg, Mesmer and the Mind/Body Connection: The Roots of Complementary Medicine (2010); Sectarian Reformers in American Medicine, 1800-1910 (2011); Joseph Rodes Buchanan: Architect of the Spirit-World, 1814-1899 (2011); The History of New Thought: From Mind Cure to Positive Thinking and the Prosperity Gospel (2012); Shadow Medicine: The Placebo in Conventional and Complementary Therapies (2014); Distant Voices: Sketches of a Swedenborgian World-View (2015); Man and His Muse: The Swedenborgian World of Rev. Frank Sewall (2019); Swedenborg' Doctrine of Uses: Reform Thought from the Enlightenment to American Pragmatism (forthcoming 2020); The Quest for Certitude: The Nineteenth Century Search for a New Basis of Belief (forthcoming 2020); and more than seventy refereed articles.
He is also the author of three data sets on reform medical colleges, societies, and journals; and a data base compiling a century of student matriculation records for the Eclectic Medical Institute of Cincinnati available on the website of the Lloyd Library and Museum. His current research interests lie in the areas of medical theory and alternative medical systems. Before retiring, Dr. Haller served for twenty years as vice president for academic affairs for the Southern Illinois University System.
James Smith Allen
Howard W. Allen
Jo Ann E. Argersinger
Rachel Stocking
Peter H. Argersinger
Michael C. Batinski
Dale Bengston
Kay J. Carr
Browning Carrott
Donald S. Detwiler
John E. Dotson
Charles Fanning
Vincent A. Lacey
Robbie Lieberman
Edward J. O'Day
David P. Werlich
David L. Wilson
History | Faner Hall 3374, Mail Code 4519, Carbondale, IL 62901


text:
Italian restaurant and bakery opens in former New Cumberland sub shop
An Italian restaurant and bakery has opened in downtown New Cumberland, part of the Cumberland County borough's ongoing revitalization efforts.
The newcomer is Zanelli's, which had been operating in Dover and as a vendor at Central Market in York. It has now moved operations to New Cumberland and opened at 316 Bridge St., a storefront that last housed Shugar's Philly Deli.
Shugar's abruptly closed around Christmas after about four years. The space was previously occupied for nearly 20 years by The Dingeldein Bakery.
Zanelli's is serving up homemade pasta dishes, pizzas and Italian pastries, along with other items such as steak and seafood.
The owner of the new restaurant announced plans for the space in April. A formal grand opening event will be held on Saturday.
As part of the restaurant's move, Hanna's Ice Cream Shoppe, which shared space with Shugar's, has relocated across the street to 321 Bridge St.
On that side of the street, a group of investors that includes Mayor Doug Morrow has been redeveloping the former Coakley's Restaurant and Irish Pub into new restaurant and retail spaces.
Coakley's, which spanned multiple parcels along Bridge and Third streets, was a longtime borough establishment closed by bankruptcy in 2014.
New tenants have been filling it back in. Recent newcomers include Lemoyne-based Dead Lightning Distillery, which opened a retail tasting room in March at 311 Bridge St. The distillery joined Funtastik, a skateboarding and snowboarding shop, that opened at 309 Bridge St.
The nearby West Shore Theatre also is under new ownership. Plans are in the works to revive the space as a theater under a Friends of the West Shore Theatre organization.
1:03 pm Fri, July 13, 2018 CPBJ


text:
Ankur Betageri (born 1983 in Bangalore, Karnataka) is an Indian poet, fiction writer, photographer and arts activist. He currently teaches English at Bharati College, University of Delhi. In 2012, he was named as one of the ten best writers in the country by the English daily Indian Express. He holds a Masters in Clinical Psychology from Christ University, Bangalore. Betageri is also known for founding the public arts and activist platform, Hulchul, whose artistic interventions in reclaiming Public Spaces like public washrooms and roadside walls, and the use of art to transform the everyday urban life have been widely appreciated. As a poet he has represented India at The III International Delphic Games (2009) at Jeju, South Korea, and Lit Up Writers Festival (2010) at Singapore.

Poetry and fiction

Betageri's poetry collection The Bliss and Madness of Being Human (2013) has been reviewed. Gopikrishnan Kottoor was critical, calling Betageri "self-indulgent" and noting that he "is trying to get at his own voice, and considering that he is just 30, he still has enough time. Ankur must take heed of real poetry happening all over, even as he cocoons himself in the illusions of his own penning." Kottoor added: "His [Betageri's] weaknesses include his fly-over statements, limitations of theme, and his predominating subjectivity. The 'I' element in many of the poems makes them much too personal, often fencing him in within the orbit of personal statements and observations. He'll do well to off-load his subjectivity, and externalise his poetry."

Speaking to The Indian Express in 2012, U.R. Ananthamurthy said of him: "Betageri writes his poetry and short fiction in Kannada as well as English, influenced both by the local and the global. Much of our Indian English writing is highly westernized but his is different. He writes in two voices both very significant... He reminds me of the great A.K. Ramanujan who wrote in both tongues with perfect ease."

Basant Badal Deta Hai Muhavre (2011) is the Hindi translation of his selected English poems by the Hindi poet Rahul Rajesh. His poems have also been translated into Bengali and Korean.

Betageri's short fiction collection Bhog and Other Stories (2010) has been praised for introducing characters who "have been largely invisible in Indian fiction in English." In a review the Nigerian poet Tade Ipadeola writes, "Betageri's greatest achievement in this collection may very well be his unveiling of the world within India as well as the India to be found in the rest of the world." While some stories depict "a world in which all values are suspect and all attempts to achieve identity are subject to frustration" others "take strange, allegorical forms" Reviewing the book the poet Anamika observes, "Defamiliarization of everyday reality by breaking it into micro-moments of non-happenings seems to be his patent technique especially in stories where he delicately handles post-modern techniques of deconstructing diary-entries (…Aftermath of a Broken Love Affair), confessions and mood-swings (Malavika), dialogues and reflections (A Conversation: Story Written in the Manner of a Movie Script)." Betageri's stories have been translated into Hindi and Italian.

Betageri is also a translator He has translated Indian writers like P.Lankesh into English, and the works of writers like Poe, Whitman, Pessoa, Sorescu, Rimbaud, Neruda and Pasolini into Kannada.

Art and photography

Ankur Betageri has exhibited his photographs at various places including ICCR, Delhi (2012), St. Stephen's College (2012) and Delhi University (2011). His photographic work often juxtaposes text and image creating the experience of what he calls "existential pause" and "bare silence". Betageri's artistic practices involve interventions in advertising billboards and the use of stencils, reproductions of paintings and photographic images in unconventional places like public toilets, public walls, parks and marketplaces.

Betageri is the founder of the public arts platform Hulchul, known for its novel public art practices like public art exhibits, washroom art projects, poetry reading in public places and creating social sculptures with trees in the city of Delhi. Hulchul's washroom art project has been recognized as a first and listed in the Limca Book of Records.

Bibliography
Kannada
 Hidida Usiru (Abhinava Prakashana, 2004)
 Idara Hesaru (Abhinava Prakashana, 2006)
 Haladi Pustaka (Kanva Prakashana, 2009)
 Malavika mattu Itara Kathegalu (Sahitya Bhandara, 2011)

English
 Bhog and Other Stories (Pilli Books, 2010)
 The Bliss and Madness of Being Human (Poetrywala, 2013)

Translation into other languages
 Basant Badal Deta Hai Muhavre (Hindi, Yash Prakashan, 2011)

References

External links
 Essays and poems - New English Review
 Poems - Softblow
 Poems - Maple Tree Literary Supplement
 Poems - Mascara Literary Review
 My Life too Pro-per: a play
 Art - Saatchi

1983 births
Living people
Indian male poets
Artists from Bangalore
20th-century Indian photographers
Indian atheists
Poets from Karnataka
Christ University alumni

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


To lay aside money, reckon rental the games that your children wager or else of purchasing them. This testament price a fraction of the price, and about gamers testament ne'er diddle a spunky over again after the firstly twin of weeks. This is unmatched of the all but monetary value conscious things that you tail end do in regards to gambling.
Online multiplayer games offer you the opportunity to interact, play, and team up with people all around the world war heroes hack generator. Keep this in mind when you're getting to know other players. Don't assume that they're in the same time zone, country, or age bracket as yourself. If they're not, don't snub them; you can learn some interesting things about other cultures by playing games with strangers.


text:
Q: Should path search order be identical for ::ShellExecute and static CFile::GetStatus() on relative path .EXE name? From within my MFC App, I am doing something like
CFileStatus fs;
if (CFile::GetStatus("MyOtherProg.exe", fs))
  {
  // found the file
  ::ShellExecute(NULL, NULL, "MyOtherProg.exe", NULL, NULL, SW_SHOW);
  }

but the full path to the file found in the static CFile::GetStatus is NOT the one being executed by ::ShellExecute (it has the same name, but is running a different version of "MyOtherProg.exe", in a different folder).
I have tried this on different PCs with the same O/S (Win7 64 bit), with different sets of "MyOtherProg.exe" in various folders.  Neither PC's ShellExecute runs the same one found in the CFile::GetStatus.  One PC always ends up running version 3, another PC always ends up running version 2 (why isn't THAT consistent?).
Note 1: Across the 2 PCs, at least 3 versions are "installed", but NONE of them are installed in the PATH.  Some DO have SHORTCUTS on the Desktop, if that is some undocumented feature.
Note 2: ALL of them are different versions of "MyOtherProg.exe", but installed in different directories.
Note 3: The full path of the one that ends up being run via ::ShellExecute is the same one found when I just type "MyOtherProg.exe" in the Search edit field below the Task Bar's START menu.  But WHY is the one found by CFile::GetStatus NOT the SAME one?  And why on one PC it's version 2, but on another PC its version 3?
Note 4: On both PCs, the resulting search list of the RUN command "MyOtherProg.exe" only shows 1 version (although on one PC, 3 versions are installed, and on the other PC 4 different versions are installed with a fifth one being a "debug" build).  The PC with 3 versions always ONLY lists version 2, the PC with 5 versions always ONLY lists version 3.

A: *

*CFile::GetStatus expands the relative path with the working directory.

*ShellExecute looks for the file using the process creation search order. This is described in the CreateProcess documentation. As well as the paths listed there, the per-application path is searched.

In short this means that CFile::GetStatus alone is simply not suitable for the task you have in mind. You'd have to re-create the shell search.
But why would you do that? The logical thing to is to call ShellExecute directly and check for errors. Let it perform the search, because it knows the rules. Since ShellExecute has deficient error reporting you should rather call ShellExecuteEx.
On the other hand, if you only want to search in the working directory as you do with your current call to CFile::GetStatus then use an absolute rather than relative path. I doubt that this is what you want to do but mention it for completeness.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Man lived inside O'Hare for 3 months before detection, prosecutors say
Column: The Chicago Bears have been living with the consequences of passing on Deshaun Watson. That's one reason they might trade for the Houston Texans quarterback.
40 years ago, America's deadliest plane crash killed 273 people at O'Hare and changed air travel forever
Coronavirus in Illinois updates: Here's what's happening Monday with COVID-19 in the Chicago area
A post-holiday COVID-19 surge? Nothing significant seen yet in Illinois, but experts still wary.
Editorial: Policing and outrage at a rushed criminal justice reform bill
Rich Cohen wrote 'Pee Wees' about the world of youth hockey: Cold steel on ice and nutty parents in the stands
Joe Ricketts, Cubs family patriarch who closed DNAinfo after union vote, to launch Omaha-based 'unbiased' news site
Teen dead, 2 injured in South Side shooting
By Tribune Staff
A 19-year-old was killed and two other teenagers injured in a shooting in the Jeffery Manor neighborhood Tuesday night, authorities said.
The shooting happened about 10:15 p.m. in the 9900 block of South Calhoun Avenue, Police News Affairs Officer Ron Gaines said. The teenagers were standing on the sidewalk when someone started shooting in their direction from down the block, police said.
The 19-year-old man, later identified as Dorval Jenkins, was struck multiple times, according to authorities. Jenkins, of the 9700 block of South Calhoun, was pronounced dead at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn at 11:19 p.m., according to the Cook County medical examiner's office.
A 17-year-old girl, shot in the leg, and an 18-year-old man, shot in the arm, were both taken to Advocate Trinity Hospital.
asege@tribune.com | Twitter: @AdamSege
17-year-old boy fatally shot on Northwest Side is among the more than 20 weekend shooting victims; 3 other fatalities reported since Friday


text:
Conon van Samos (Oudgrieks Κόνων ὁ Σάμιος) (ca. 280 v.Chr. - 220 v.Chr) was een hellenistische astronoom en wiskundige. Hij wordt vooral herinnerd omdat hij het sterrenbeeld Coma Berenices zijn naam heeft gegeven.

Referenties
 . Conon of Samos., Dictionary of Scientific Biography 3:391.
 , A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy (New York, 1975).

Externe link
 Conon van Samos op MacTutor

Oud-Grieks wiskundige
Oud-Grieks astronoom
Hellenistisch wetenschapper


Hang the moon around your neck with an elegant necklace. A moon phase necklace captures the moon in a specific phase and places it into a necklace full of meaning. Choose from any moon phase that's special to you—from Full Moon to New Moon, and even including a Lunar or Solar Eclipse.
Dimensions: Pendant: 0.5" diameter x 0.11"; Chain Length: 18"
Maybe you believe the moon influences our personalities. Or perhaps you simply like gazing up at this mysterious glowing sphere. Either way, Moonglow's moon phase necklace is a meaningful way to commemorate important dates or events.
Featuring pendants with a subtly luminescent moon phase, these pewter necklaces are the creation of Canadian artist Luc Rouleau. He's quite passionate about the celestial orb circling nearby. In fact, he can name—from memory—the cycle it was in during any date from the last century.
But you don't need to memorize like that, because Moonglow will find the right phase for any date you choose—and deliver the appropriate necklace. They even include a card to give you more context about the moon cycles and explain the traits associated with each.
Luc's design has an antiqued, vintage feel dotted with a single Swarovski crystal. Honor a birthday, anniversary, or even just your favorite phase of the moon by keeping it close to your heart.


Anak pokok Bidara Berduri (Ziziphus spina-christi). Tinggi lebih kurang 1-2 kaki.
Received the items like 3 days after i made my payment.I ordered 2 anak bidara berduri,one was good with soil and roots intact.The other one,smaller one not so good as i transferred into the pot,the soil around it crumbled leaving the roots hanging.wish theyre both as intact as the first one.
J-Biotech Nandan Herba Sdn. Bhd.


@YamAsereht That eventual divorce is going to be painful. Will you be the one to tell the Switch you are seeing the upgraded sister behind it's back in a couple of years or will your Switch see you playing around with it?
In my opinion the switch is the best console i ever played. The only problem with it is that there are not enough games. It may sound kinda harsh but it would benefit frome some more variety. I still like platformers but kirby and donkey kong and could have been a little more spaced out. I have the same problem with hyrule warriors and fire emblem warriors. The upcoming mario tennis aces and sushi strikers are games that I'm not really sure about. They could be good or even great but they could also dissapoint. I really hope that nintendo releases Fire emblem and another big hitter like pokemon besides smash because I'm not really that hyped for Yoshi. Third party-wise I was really happy with the south park port and the upcoming Ys VIII and Crash bandicoot ports. I just hope that companies are going to bring the right games to switch. At this point there is not a really good fighter on switch so a port of mortal combat, injustice 2 or tekken 7 would be huge. A shooter like borderlands would also be great. A great Racing game is also missing, i would take a need for speed rivals port. I also hope that Bethesda brings dishonered and fallout to switch. Ubisoft support for the switch has also been great, a port of assassins creed rogue and farcry 3 or 4 would also be lovely. Other third-party games that would really fit well on switch are Zero Escape: The Nonary Games, Xcom 2, danganronpa, Devil may cry, Wonderful 101, Batman Arkham Knight and GTA V. I Also hope EA and 2k's sport titels are good ports this year. Conclusion, yes i love my switch but i don't love the amount of good games that are on switch at this point in time.
While it's annoying if a new gadget doesn't get along with your existing setup, there should be a solution for this as my download speeds are fine.
After the Wii U I was indeed hesitant. But as of today I noticed that by year's end I will have as many games for my Switch as I did for the Wii U and in just two years of the Switch being a thing. For me, that is 45+ retail games. The Switch's library is insanely impressive and makes me fear for my bank account.
The console is flawed but brilliant but it has always been the games that drove me to love gaming. And the Switch's sheer abundance of games that cater to me have made it the best console in my collection. I love my Switch and it is great to know my gamble on the idea of a hybrid-console being a thing paid off brilliantly.
I love my Switch but I will admit I have some problems with it. For one there is a lack of games that you can record video on using the screenshot button. Secondly the titles are great but a lot are from other consoles. But I do love most of the exclusive games because they have beautiful environments: XC2, BOTW, SMO. Also there isn't a lack of games but for some it could seem like there is because they are just rereleased.
What frequency is your wifi?
My Switch had download speeds that were garbage. I changed my WiFi from 2.4ghz to 5ghz and it downloads incredibly fast now.
There are a couple downsides to 5ghz (not as large a range and doesn't work well through walls), but it was a massive improvement. I forget what it was I was downloading when I switched over (either the Doom patch or Rocket League), but it went from needing 5hours on 2.4ghz to only needing 50mins on 5ghz, so it was a big difference.
Yes. Only thing that would make me dislike the system would be if games suddenly stopped coming out for it. Obviously that's not happening any time soon.
I like it enough but I have some issues with it. The onboard storage is way too small. In addition I'm not too big on all the wii u ports as I owned a wii u. I also want more major 3rd party support and I hate that Nintendo was too cheap to include a charging grip for the joycons.
Very much so, as I'm getting older, I have found I have less time for gaming on the TV, my wife likes to watch her shows and the Switch gives me opportunity if it's something I don't want to watch to play in handheld.
It's got to the point where I am thinking of getting rid of my PS4 and just sticking with the Switch. I love my PS4, but I have to look at my situation, especially with money and having bills, family etc to pay for, that too it limited so I'm always going to be unable to buy all the games that I want to buy for both systems. Plus when I do game, I find I'm not having hours and hours playing like I used too, again which is probably down to how things in my life have changed.
The fact that I'm not tied to a TV with the Switch is the main reason I love it, combined with the games I have and what's to come, this system is perfect for me.
I Love it..... but, The game line up in 2017 was great, a constant stream of first and third party games. I bought Zelda , mario, mk8, splatoon, doom , fifa, arms, skyrim, mario plus rabbids. it was fantastic. Year 2, not so much, ive not been interested in any of the first party stuff so far in 2018, and im not into indys particularly. Im basically still regularly playing my 2017 titles. Really hoping for a strong e3 , otherwise for me 2018 is a bust, even including smash. I hope im proven wrong and they absolutely kill it at e3.
@SwitchForce I have got the 'holy trinity' - Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Super Mario Odyssey - along with Golf Story, Kamiko, SteamWorld Dig 2 and a NeoGeo game (The King of Fighters '98).
I have happily completed them all besides Golf Story. I thoroughly enjoyed my honeymoon period!
Already played most of the worthwhile indie games on my PlayStation 4 over the past three years, and I have zero desire to buy any (more) Wii U ports, especially at full price, and considering I have already played them before. More power for those who choose to do so though.
I am really looking forward to playing Runner3 this month!
The likes of Yakuza 6, Ni no Kuni II and God of War have got my undivided attention at present.
Got mine in November and have had a constant stream of top tier games to play back to back to back, (Going from SMO to DBX2 to XC2 to MK8D [this a gift] to BotW to FEW to Kirby [as brief as it was] one right after the other has been a wild ride), so I'd say I'm still very much in love with it. I'm not too excited with my current game (Atelier Lydie & Suelle, which isn't bad by any means, but my first Switch game I'd call average) so my overall Switch playtime has slowed, but as I'm nearing the end I'm picking up the pace again.
Certainly it helps that I don't have a PS4 or Wii U however, as so many of the recent/upcoming ports are new to me.
Yes. The Switch is the console I've been waiting for; playing console-grade games on the go is a god-send. The system itself is amazing.
But I'm still not sure whether I like the system more than my Wii U (yes, I said it). It's probably not going to take too long before I fully prefer the Switch to the Wii U. I guess I just had a lot of fun playing the Wii U, even with games like Splatoon 2, Odyssey, and Breath of the Wild.
The future is looking excellent w/ games like Smash and Mario Tennis Aces. Yep, now is probably the worst time to NOT like the Switch.
Even though I'm platform agnostic, I find myself playing mostly my Switch since I bought mine back in August. However, I'm very excited for PS5 and Xbox Two in the next couple or few years. The PS4 and Xbox One, hardware wise, were already being pushed to their limit before this generation of consoles even began. I'm ready for 1080p 60fps across all my games on either PS5 or Xbox Two.
Bruh, when ISNT the switch on me??
Fortunately for me I'm not old and not having a family I often have loooads of free time on my hands when I'm not working.
@Magician Hopefully they keep providing 1080p 60 FPS options with next-gen systems. God of War 2018 and Monster Hunter World shows that with more extra grunt available compared to even the Xbox One X or PS4 Pro, we could perhaps see 60 FPS for these types of games. Open world games like Assassin's Creed and such would probably barely hit 60 FPS though, even at 1080p.
I'm sorta old school in that even 720p looks awesome, so just give me very harsh dynamic resolution so I can have my butter-smooth 60 FPS whenever possible.


Flip Flap is a solar powered toy that resembles a plant inspired by Yusuf "flip-flap"
The Flip Flap has a large cult following in Japan, but popularity of the ornamental gadget is growing in the UK being marketed under the Tomy brand. Flip Flaps come in different models like the "Q" (which is round) and "F" (which has the shape of a flower pot). The big Flip Flaps (depends on the number) usually have three movements. Once you turn it on, the leaves begin to move up and down. If you tap one of the leaves, it shall begin to move seesaw to the direction in which the leaf was tapped.
As with other Tomy manufactured solar powered toys, there are fake Flip Flaps being sold in stores. These are often cheaply made in China and are limited to only an up-and-down motion, and are incapable of the 3 different movements characteristic of authentic Flip Flaps. The fake and real versions look extremely similar, but consumers can differentiate between the two by looking for the Tomy logo, almost entirely Japanese characters on the box (limited English), and dark green leaves (fake Flip Flaps have light green leaves, as opposed to the darker, real ones of slightly better quality).
According to the EU patent database, the original patent was actually registered to a small Chinese company called "SHENZHEN LONGGANG PINGHU TENGY". It seems that Tomy has either obtained the licence to market this product as "Flip Flap" in EU or infringed the patent of the Chinese company.


text:
Mac Mini 2014 Release Date, Price & Rumors: Why Apple Could Skip October Upgrade
Jomari | admin@latinopost.com
Have you heard the news? Apple is organizing an event this month! Here's what we can expect of the event: Last month's launch of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus would probably be followed by a showcase of the newest versions of the iPad air and iPad Mini. Rumors are also circulating that it will show off its OS X Yosemite operating system for its desktop.
But wait, there's more! Website Autoomobile said that there had been speculations that one of the highlights of the event is the new Mac Mini which has never been updated for almost two years now. The Mac Mini is known as Apple's smallest desktop Mac.
Autoomobile said that the rumors started when a computer store in Belgium leaked some information about the device. Rumors said that the new device will be available with a possible i7 Intel processor. This, however, has never been confirmed by Apple.
The site also noted that the new Mac Mini 2014 will come with the newest technology and features Apple has created and developed recently. It is also expected to be a "better performer" with its faster speed.
However, AirHerald reported that the new device won't push through as the new Intel processors won't be available by spring.
MacWorld said that Apple had to delay the upgrade of the Mac Mini as it is still waiting for Intel to ship its new chips. The report also said that Intel's chief executive Brian Krzanich said that the Broadwell systems would be available by Christmas.
MacWorld also noted that the new Mac Mini is expected to have a new design, but it is still not clear as to how it would really look like. It is also expected that the new Mac Mini would be smaller in dimension and may weigh less. Currently, Mac Mini is 3.6 cm high, 19.7 cm wide, and it weighs 1.22 kg.
It is also expected that the new Mac Mini would get an upgrade on its processor and memory. MacWorld said that an entry-level Mac Mini currently has a 2.5 GHz dual-core processor with 4GB RAM and 500GB hard drive.
Another upgrade being eyed is the upgrade of its WiFi. Despite the upgrades being looked into, MacWorld said that Apple may retain its price.
The event will be held at the Apple headquarters in Cupertino, California on October 16. Tech geeks and consumers are also looking forward to an iMac or a MacBook Air which has a Retina display and an updated Apple TV.
FOLLOW: Apple, Mac Mini, Mac, Mac Mini 2014, iPhone, iPhone 6, iPad, iPad Air, iPad mini, OS X Yosemite