The Government has taken a tough line on smoking – banning smoking in public places, and raising to 18 the age at which it is legal to buy tobacco products. In its defence, the Government can point to both success: smoking rates having fallen from 28% to 21% in the decade since 1998; and the ongoing tobacco-induced carnage as a prompt to further action: more than 80,000 die from smoking-related illnesses per year (which according to the Government is "more than alcohol, road traffic and other accidents, suicide, illegal drugs and diabetes combined").
The Health Bill before Parliament contains provision for more anti-smoking measures, and to coincide with it the Department of Health has opened a consultation on the implementation of the main proposals in the Bill: to restrict tobacco displays in shops and the sale of tobacco products in vending machines.
However, a rebel amendment from Ian McCartney MP has somewhat pre-empted half of the consultation's remit by introducing an outright ban of tobacco vending machines – which does seem a logical step, since you can't buy alcohol (also 18-rated) from vending machines, as Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) pointed out. Cancer Research UK also welcomed the move, their Chief Executive Harpal Kumar stating, "removing cigarette vending machines will help reduce the number of young people taking up a lethal addiction: tobacco kills half of all long term users".
Still, for consultation fans, you have until 4th January 2010 to have your say about the display of tobacco products in shops – about which the Government previously consulted in 2008. A YouGov survey at that time on behalf of anti-smoking campaigners ASH found that nearly 60% favoured banning tobacco displays in shops.
However, the plans have lined up another organisation against New Labour – though not necessarily one to join the progressive throng – the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN), a trade association representing over 32,000 independent newsagents and convenience stores. They are now threatening to boycott Labour at the General Election (join the queue!) unless the legislation is overturned. Just wait until age discrimination legislation stops their "no more than two schoolchildren" signs!
In the consultation document it states: "we firmly believe that small shops are at the heart of our communities and it is vital that we listen to shopkeepers to make sure that the regulations are workable and cost-effective in practice". Perhaps that is why the draft regulations proposed in the consultation to allow for the outlawing of tobacco displays will apply in large shops from October 2011, but newsagents will be given until October 2013.
While previous Governments have focused solely on price – which disproportionately hits the poorest – to deter smoking, this Government has also recognised the importance of changing the smoking culture (by outlawing it in pubs and clubs) and restricting advertisements. As the consultation document states, smoking "is the primary reason for the gap in healthy life expectancy between the rich and poor".
Friday, 6 November 2009
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Mother, father, parent.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is carrying out a final consultation – having already consulted in 2006 and 2007 – on bringing in additional paternity leave. The proposals in effect make the latter six months of maternity leave into flexible parental leave by allowing mothers to transfer up to 26 weeks’ leave entitlement to fathers after the first 20 weeks.
Although the term "father" is used throughout the consultation paper, additional paternity leave and pay would also be available to partners (of either sex) of mothers and members of adopting couples who are employed and who qualify for statutory adoption leave and pay.
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, said last month: "The new rights will give families radically more choice and flexibility in how they balance work and care of children, and enable fathers to play a bigger part in bringing up their children."
While Harman often, and rightly, points out how new Labour has doubled maternity leave from six months to (soon to be) twelve months, and increased maternity pay, this has not challenged gender roles. The EHRC's 'Working Better' report found that, "new parental rights introduced over the past decade are well intentioned but entrench the current unequal division of labour and caring between the sexes and work against gender equality".
The Government's Enterprise tsar, Sir Alan Sugar, made this point all too clearly when he said he would be less likely to hire a woman of child-bearing age. Explaining, he said: "If someone comes into an interview and you think to yourself 'there is a possibility that this woman might have a child and therefore take time off' it is a bit of a psychological negative thought", adding that extended maternity leave was "counter-productive".
Trade unions have welcomed these proposals, while recognising the need for Government to support further changes in working culture. The CWU advocates that "working parents should be allowed to take time off together and that the time off together should not be limited to just the two weeks of Statutory Paternity Leave".
The GMB pointed out in its response to a previous consultation that UK fathers currently work the longest hours in Europe and that the gender pay gap means that, for the majority of two parent families, it still makes better financial sense for the mother to take the bulk of time off work to care for the children.
But as the Daycare Trust points out, such changes are about "enabling families to make a choice about which parent is the carer, as well as promoting gender equality and potentially closing the gender pay gap" – although such cultural changes may take a long time. The Government estimates in the consultation paper that only 4-8% of fathers will take up this entitlement.
This issue therefore cannot be seen isolation from the gender pay gap, childcare provision and levels of poverty. While this is a welcome move by the Government, there's a lot more that must be done to truly break down traditional gender roles in child-rearing.
The consultation can be downloaded from the departmental website. The deadline for responses is 20th November 2009.
Although the term "father" is used throughout the consultation paper, additional paternity leave and pay would also be available to partners (of either sex) of mothers and members of adopting couples who are employed and who qualify for statutory adoption leave and pay.
Harriet Harman, Minister for Women and Equality, said last month: "The new rights will give families radically more choice and flexibility in how they balance work and care of children, and enable fathers to play a bigger part in bringing up their children."
While Harman often, and rightly, points out how new Labour has doubled maternity leave from six months to (soon to be) twelve months, and increased maternity pay, this has not challenged gender roles. The EHRC's 'Working Better' report found that, "new parental rights introduced over the past decade are well intentioned but entrench the current unequal division of labour and caring between the sexes and work against gender equality".
The Government's Enterprise tsar, Sir Alan Sugar, made this point all too clearly when he said he would be less likely to hire a woman of child-bearing age. Explaining, he said: "If someone comes into an interview and you think to yourself 'there is a possibility that this woman might have a child and therefore take time off' it is a bit of a psychological negative thought", adding that extended maternity leave was "counter-productive".
Trade unions have welcomed these proposals, while recognising the need for Government to support further changes in working culture. The CWU advocates that "working parents should be allowed to take time off together and that the time off together should not be limited to just the two weeks of Statutory Paternity Leave".
The GMB pointed out in its response to a previous consultation that UK fathers currently work the longest hours in Europe and that the gender pay gap means that, for the majority of two parent families, it still makes better financial sense for the mother to take the bulk of time off work to care for the children.
But as the Daycare Trust points out, such changes are about "enabling families to make a choice about which parent is the carer, as well as promoting gender equality and potentially closing the gender pay gap" – although such cultural changes may take a long time. The Government estimates in the consultation paper that only 4-8% of fathers will take up this entitlement.
This issue therefore cannot be seen isolation from the gender pay gap, childcare provision and levels of poverty. While this is a welcome move by the Government, there's a lot more that must be done to truly break down traditional gender roles in child-rearing.
The consultation can be downloaded from the departmental website. The deadline for responses is 20th November 2009.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
How do we care?
Just before the summer recess, the Government published a Green Paper 'Shaping the Future of Care Together' proposing to develop a 'National Care Service' in the UK to make social care affordable for everyone.
In his foreword, Gordon Brown states that "A care and support system that reflects the needs of our times and meets our rising aspirations is achievable, but only if we are prepared to rise to the challenge of radical reform".
During 2008, the Government ran a six-month engagement process with the public, people who use services, and people who work in the care and support sector. Perhaps that was a sobering experience, because the DoH admits in this consultation paper that "There are wide variations in the standards and quantity of care and support offered by different local authorities. Such postcode lotteries are worsening as funding struggles to keep pace with rising numbers of older people in need of support".
The costs of care in the UK are phenomenal: a 65-year-old can expect to need care costing on average £30,000 during their retirement. Two in three women and one in two men will develop high care needs in their final years.
The one way in which a system could meet needs is through a universal, free at the point of need national care service funded through general taxation – it would also be the "radical reform" the Prime Minister claims to want.
The consultation paper looks at five funding options, the fifth of which is a tax-funded system. This is "ruled out because it places a heavy burden on people of working age". This has to be the most illogical statement ever made. If that burden is heavy when spread across the entire working population, then how 'heavy' will it be when placed solely upon those who actually need care? The paper also stops short of suggesting care home accommodation costs should be met, which will impose another cost on older people.
However, it is entirely consistent with the New Labour agenda against universalism and towards co-payment, means-testing and stigmatisation – across the board from benefits to pensions. As part of that agenda it is proposed that non-means tested, needs-based Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance would be used to fund a national care service. However, these benefits enable individuals to pay for extra living expenses, not basic care.
The National Pensioners Convention states that therefore the Green Paper "does not meet our concerns". In response the NPC has instead presented an alternative vision of a National Care Service, and is building alliances with others to forcefully put the case for truly fair system – the only fair system.
Social care is an issue that, like healthcare and pensions, will affect us all. Universalism is the only way forward – and trade unions also need to be fighting alongside the NPC and carers’ organisations for this approach. A National Care Service could then be as emblematic as the National Health Service.
This approach is also advocated by Age Concern and Help the Aged, "high quality care must be available to all who need it regardless of where they live and whether they are rich or poor" according to their Director Michelle Mitchell.
The consultation on the Green Paper runs until 13th November 2009, and can be downloaded from the Department of Health website.
In his foreword, Gordon Brown states that "A care and support system that reflects the needs of our times and meets our rising aspirations is achievable, but only if we are prepared to rise to the challenge of radical reform".
During 2008, the Government ran a six-month engagement process with the public, people who use services, and people who work in the care and support sector. Perhaps that was a sobering experience, because the DoH admits in this consultation paper that "There are wide variations in the standards and quantity of care and support offered by different local authorities. Such postcode lotteries are worsening as funding struggles to keep pace with rising numbers of older people in need of support".
The costs of care in the UK are phenomenal: a 65-year-old can expect to need care costing on average £30,000 during their retirement. Two in three women and one in two men will develop high care needs in their final years.
The one way in which a system could meet needs is through a universal, free at the point of need national care service funded through general taxation – it would also be the "radical reform" the Prime Minister claims to want.
The consultation paper looks at five funding options, the fifth of which is a tax-funded system. This is "ruled out because it places a heavy burden on people of working age". This has to be the most illogical statement ever made. If that burden is heavy when spread across the entire working population, then how 'heavy' will it be when placed solely upon those who actually need care? The paper also stops short of suggesting care home accommodation costs should be met, which will impose another cost on older people.
However, it is entirely consistent with the New Labour agenda against universalism and towards co-payment, means-testing and stigmatisation – across the board from benefits to pensions. As part of that agenda it is proposed that non-means tested, needs-based Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance would be used to fund a national care service. However, these benefits enable individuals to pay for extra living expenses, not basic care.
The National Pensioners Convention states that therefore the Green Paper "does not meet our concerns". In response the NPC has instead presented an alternative vision of a National Care Service, and is building alliances with others to forcefully put the case for truly fair system – the only fair system.
Social care is an issue that, like healthcare and pensions, will affect us all. Universalism is the only way forward – and trade unions also need to be fighting alongside the NPC and carers’ organisations for this approach. A National Care Service could then be as emblematic as the National Health Service.
This approach is also advocated by Age Concern and Help the Aged, "high quality care must be available to all who need it regardless of where they live and whether they are rich or poor" according to their Director Michelle Mitchell.
The consultation on the Green Paper runs until 13th November 2009, and can be downloaded from the Department of Health website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)