The Post Office has this week launched a consultation as part of its programme to close Post Offices across the country. The first areas to be consulted on include Kent, the East Midlands, East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire – but the consultation will eventually cover all areas of the country.
The Government remains the largest shareholder in the Post Office and has laid down certain criteria about the closures, which will eventually mean 2,500 post offices closed. The criteria include the availability of public transport, alternative access to post office services, and the impact on local communities.
Recognising that there is a social role played by the Post Office, the Government has also committed £150m per year until 2011 to support the rural network. However the Campaign to Protect Rural England doubts this is sufficient: "despite buying a bit more time for the existing network, and acknowledging the complexity of local circumstances, in the end, many post offices will close. For many rural communities and the people that visit them on holiday, life will be made more difficult and communities will be put under greater strain."
A great source of information for consumers is Postwatch which contains lots of information about the proposals and how you can have your say. Postwatch aims to protect, promote and develop the interests of all customers of postal services in the UK.
The Communication Workers' Union (CWU), representing post office workers, has set out its concerns about the closures programme. As you may have noticed, post office workers have recently been taking industrial action against Post Office Ltd over pay and pensions. For more information on the dispute, visit the CWU website.
The RNIB is campaigning to "ensure that the closure process and alternative arrangements take into account the needs of blind and partially sighted people". Help the Aged also has concerns: "Post Offices are a vital lifeline for many older people and it is important that older people have their say on what happens in local communities."
Each local consultation will run for six weeks. For details of when the consultation starts in your area, visit the Royal Mail website.
For current consultations and details of how to respond, see the Post Office website.
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Monday, 10 September 2007
Your say on Drugs
In July the Home Office launched it consultation on drugs 'Our Community, Your Say', which will then inform the Government's drug strategy. The consultation looks at the issue from a range of angles: public information and education, enforcement and punishment, and treatment and support – and there's also a section of the consultation about the international supply-chain.
The Government is quite proud of its record over the last decade and boasts of twice as many drug users in treatment and a reduction of 20% in drug-related crime.
Earlier this year a report by the RSA published a detailed report into the issue which you can download from the RSA website or read a summary on the NACRO site.
The report gives a thoughtful overview and advocates bringing all misused substances under one Act, and treating them as predominantly a health rather than a criminal problem – transferring overall responsibility for drugs strategy from the Home Office to the Department for Communities and Local Government. This would integrate drugs policy "into policies in such areas as social exclusion, housing and homelessness and regeneration". As Drugscope points out "One in three problem drug users are homeless or in need of housing support."
NAPO, the trade union for probation officers, told a 2001 select committee enquiry on drugs, "there is no evidence that punishment or imprisonment reduces drug misuse, but on the contrary that access to treatment reduces criminal behaviour. NAPO believes that drug misuse is nevertheless a health and educational problem and not a matter for the courts and criminal justice system". You can read the submission in full on the parliamentary website. You can read the contemporary views of probation officers on the NAPO discussion forum.
This may be seen by some as "soft on drugs". However, the Government states that "every £1 invested in treatment produces £9.50 of savings in health and criminal justice costs". Despite the acknowledged overall benefit to tax-payers of treating drug users, the Government consultation document also insists "resources are not limitless . . . our aim is to reduce overall [treatment] costs whilst improving effectiveness". So the Government is actually proposing decreasing funding despite their acknowledgement of its cost-effectiveness!
PCS, the trade union that represents prison instructional officers, is calling for "greater emphasis on stopping re-offending through alcohol and drug treatments and by equipping prisoners with the skills to get work". This also highlights that alcohol treatment is excluded from the consultation, except in the context of young people for whom alcohol is illegal.
This seems a major omission. Addaction points out that "in some parts of the UK people addicted to alcohol face waits of up to a year for treatment", and a report for the Howard League for Penal Reform found that "more young men are in prison because of alcohol than drugs".
It is implicit in the consultation that the Government is not considering the legal status of drugs – with the exception of cannabis, which the Government is considering reclassifying up to Class B from Class C. The Police Federation states "you do not need to change classification to change the way drug issues are policed. It's important that police officers have discretion to take account of all individual circumstances". Drugscope concurs, pointing out that since cannabis was downgraded, its use has actually fallen among young people. Rethink, the charity serving those with severe mental illness, is also underwhelmed - believing that a health campaign rather than harsher laws would be more useful.
The RSA report recommended that drugs education in schools must occur in primary schools too, and NASUWT, a teachers’ union, advocates an extension of random drug testing in schools.
On the international front, Oxfam is calling for "massive support for non-opium agriculture and rural livelihoods" in Afghanistan rather than aerial crop-spraying or removal by force.
The consultation document 'Drugs: Our Community, Your Say' can be downloaded from the Home Office website. The deadline for responses is 19th October 2007.
The Government is quite proud of its record over the last decade and boasts of twice as many drug users in treatment and a reduction of 20% in drug-related crime.
Earlier this year a report by the RSA published a detailed report into the issue which you can download from the RSA website or read a summary on the NACRO site.
The report gives a thoughtful overview and advocates bringing all misused substances under one Act, and treating them as predominantly a health rather than a criminal problem – transferring overall responsibility for drugs strategy from the Home Office to the Department for Communities and Local Government. This would integrate drugs policy "into policies in such areas as social exclusion, housing and homelessness and regeneration". As Drugscope points out "One in three problem drug users are homeless or in need of housing support."
NAPO, the trade union for probation officers, told a 2001 select committee enquiry on drugs, "there is no evidence that punishment or imprisonment reduces drug misuse, but on the contrary that access to treatment reduces criminal behaviour. NAPO believes that drug misuse is nevertheless a health and educational problem and not a matter for the courts and criminal justice system". You can read the submission in full on the parliamentary website. You can read the contemporary views of probation officers on the NAPO discussion forum.
This may be seen by some as "soft on drugs". However, the Government states that "every £1 invested in treatment produces £9.50 of savings in health and criminal justice costs". Despite the acknowledged overall benefit to tax-payers of treating drug users, the Government consultation document also insists "resources are not limitless . . . our aim is to reduce overall [treatment] costs whilst improving effectiveness". So the Government is actually proposing decreasing funding despite their acknowledgement of its cost-effectiveness!
PCS, the trade union that represents prison instructional officers, is calling for "greater emphasis on stopping re-offending through alcohol and drug treatments and by equipping prisoners with the skills to get work". This also highlights that alcohol treatment is excluded from the consultation, except in the context of young people for whom alcohol is illegal.
This seems a major omission. Addaction points out that "in some parts of the UK people addicted to alcohol face waits of up to a year for treatment", and a report for the Howard League for Penal Reform found that "more young men are in prison because of alcohol than drugs".
It is implicit in the consultation that the Government is not considering the legal status of drugs – with the exception of cannabis, which the Government is considering reclassifying up to Class B from Class C. The Police Federation states "you do not need to change classification to change the way drug issues are policed. It's important that police officers have discretion to take account of all individual circumstances". Drugscope concurs, pointing out that since cannabis was downgraded, its use has actually fallen among young people. Rethink, the charity serving those with severe mental illness, is also underwhelmed - believing that a health campaign rather than harsher laws would be more useful.
The RSA report recommended that drugs education in schools must occur in primary schools too, and NASUWT, a teachers’ union, advocates an extension of random drug testing in schools.
On the international front, Oxfam is calling for "massive support for non-opium agriculture and rural livelihoods" in Afghanistan rather than aerial crop-spraying or removal by force.
The consultation document 'Drugs: Our Community, Your Say' can be downloaded from the Home Office website. The deadline for responses is 19th October 2007.
Friday, 24 August 2007
Homes for the Future
The Housing Green Paper 'Homes for Future' was published in July 2007. It outlines plans to build 3 million new homes across Britain by 2020, and to put an extra £8bn funding into affordable housing.
The proposals have been broadly welcomed as a major step to reverse the trend over the last 30 years of fewer houses being built, which has led to the current housing shortage and soaring house prices.
House prices have doubled in the last decade so that in London, the South East, South West and the East of England the average house price is over 8 times the average wage. The Green Paper also points out that the percentage of private renters who can afford to buy has more than halved in the last decade.
In welcoming the proposals, Shelter points out there are over 1.6 million people on council house waiting lists in England alone, and fellow homelessness charity Crisis is calling for at least 750,000 social rented homes to be included in the 3m total.
The Defend Council Housing (DCH) campaign, supported by several trade unions representing key workers, is calling for the restoration of powers to councils to build and manage social housing. They have issued 5 demands in response to the Green Paper. As Jack Dromey of the Unite union said, "Council house building has collapsed from 300,000 to 300 a year in a generation".
The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) is concerned that "such a huge increase in housebuilding could sharply raise the rate at which countryside is built on and add to the environmental damage associated with housebuilding". They have published their alternative proposals.
From a different environmental angle, Friends of the Earth, believes the Government's proposal to make all new homes carbon neutral by 2016 should be achieved by 2010. Our homes are currently responsible for over 25% of UK carbon emissions.
Construction union UCATT highlights concerns about the exploitation of construction workers and calls for an apprenticeship training programme to train a new generation of skilled construction workers - which would seem all the more necessary with the construction necessary for the Olympics and Crossrail in the same timeframe.
The Green Paper also looks at how local authorities can benefit from the increased value from planning decisions. The Labour Land Campaign has some alternative proposals for Land Value Tax, which are compelling.
The Government has also pledged to publish a 'National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society' in the Autumn, which may please Help the Aged - which believes the Housing Green Paper is a "missed opportunity" for older people's housing.
The Housing Green Paper 'Homes for the Future' can be downloaded from the Department of Communities and Local Government website, and the deadline for responses is 15th October 2007.
The proposals have been broadly welcomed as a major step to reverse the trend over the last 30 years of fewer houses being built, which has led to the current housing shortage and soaring house prices.
House prices have doubled in the last decade so that in London, the South East, South West and the East of England the average house price is over 8 times the average wage. The Green Paper also points out that the percentage of private renters who can afford to buy has more than halved in the last decade.
In welcoming the proposals, Shelter points out there are over 1.6 million people on council house waiting lists in England alone, and fellow homelessness charity Crisis is calling for at least 750,000 social rented homes to be included in the 3m total.
The Defend Council Housing (DCH) campaign, supported by several trade unions representing key workers, is calling for the restoration of powers to councils to build and manage social housing. They have issued 5 demands in response to the Green Paper. As Jack Dromey of the Unite union said, "Council house building has collapsed from 300,000 to 300 a year in a generation".
The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) is concerned that "such a huge increase in housebuilding could sharply raise the rate at which countryside is built on and add to the environmental damage associated with housebuilding". They have published their alternative proposals.
From a different environmental angle, Friends of the Earth, believes the Government's proposal to make all new homes carbon neutral by 2016 should be achieved by 2010. Our homes are currently responsible for over 25% of UK carbon emissions.
Construction union UCATT highlights concerns about the exploitation of construction workers and calls for an apprenticeship training programme to train a new generation of skilled construction workers - which would seem all the more necessary with the construction necessary for the Olympics and Crossrail in the same timeframe.
The Green Paper also looks at how local authorities can benefit from the increased value from planning decisions. The Labour Land Campaign has some alternative proposals for Land Value Tax, which are compelling.
The Government has also pledged to publish a 'National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society' in the Autumn, which may please Help the Aged - which believes the Housing Green Paper is a "missed opportunity" for older people's housing.
The Housing Green Paper 'Homes for the Future' can be downloaded from the Department of Communities and Local Government website, and the deadline for responses is 15th October 2007.
In Work, Better Off?
The latest proposals for welfare reform have been set out in the consultation document 'In Work, Better Off', available to download from the Department for Work and Pensions website.
Government is targeting a one million reduction in those on incapacity benefit, and aiming to get an additional 300,000 lone parents and one million more older people into work. Yet in the Green Paper there is no evidence to suggest whether or how this is possible.
These figures are simply the necessary number to reach the Government's own target of an 80% employment rate, for which no reason is given. As the Work and Pensions Select Committee said in its May 2007 report, "there is a lack of clarity about precisely what the 80% aim represents and why it has been set".
For lone parents, the Government is proposing to make lone parents on benefit look for work when their youngest child is 12 by 2008, falling to the age of 7 by 2010. At the moment lone parents receive benefit until their child is 16.
These proposals have been heavily criticised by childcare groups. Chris Pond, a former Government Minister who now heads One Parent Families (OPF), said "a punitive approach would only impact badly on youngsters in one parent families - many of whom have already lost one parent".
OPF points out that the voluntary New Deal scheme has already doubled the chances of lone parents finding work, and that a punitive approach could be counter-productive. Failure to comply with the proposed new regime could result in benefits being cut, if parents decide to look after their children rather than return to work. Those with children over 12 and eventually 7 will lose lone parent benefit, and therefore be on Jobseekers' Allowance.
This seems to contradict what the new Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families told the Daycare Trust conference in June this year: "Staying at home or returning to work must be a choice for parents, and our role is to make that a real choice . . . to make both staying at home and returning to work practical and realistic, so that parents can do what is best for them and their children."
Bizarrely though the consultation paper states that "we have considered increasing the work-related responsibilities for carers and do not believe this would be appropriate". What are lone parents if not carers? As OPF states: "if they work they are accused of neglecting their childrens' needs and if they don't of scrounging from the State".
The Daycare Trust, OPF and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) have highlighted the shortfall of childcare provision to enable more parents into work. CPAG is calling for "a government commitment to the same level of childcare investment as countries with more working lone parents, like Denmark and Sweden".
For disabled people, there is much more that needs to be done to break down employer prejudice (despite the Disability Discrimination Act). The mental health charity Rethink says "less than 40% of employers saying they would employ someone with mental illness, the government must do more to help reduce the prejudice and ignorance which surround mental health. Scotland invests eight times what the English government does on anti-stigma campaigns and has seen real results".
RADAR, the pan-disability charity, says the Government needs to invest more in skills training and childcare - pointing out that a quarter of children living in poverty in the UK has a disabled parent. RADAR's Liz Sayce said "increasing in-work tax credits, extending conditionality and broadening eligibility criteria for employment programmes does not equate to having radical new ideas for how to support people to get and keep work".
The civil service union PCS points out that over 15,000 Jobcentre staff have been cut over the last two years, and over 500 jobcentres and benefit offices closed. It is concerned that these, and further looming cuts, will undermine the welcome parts of the Green Paper to provide more individualised help.
The Government is proposing to outsource some of this work, and PCS has considerable doubts that there is the capacity in the private and voluntary sectors to carry out the functions. You can download PCS's response to the Freud Report (which informed the Government's Green Paper) which provides useful information about how these changes could and could not be delivered.
CPAG is also concerned about the proposed reform of the delivery: "if charities take on the role of policing the benefits system, the relationship of openness and trust with their clients that is a key factor in their success will be damaged, and vulnerable individuals will lose the protection of independent advocates who can stand up for their rights."
As well as issues around employer discrimination, the consultation also raises issues about the ability of workers to choose flexible working patterns. At present employees have the right to request flexible working patterns, but there is no obligation for employers to provide it.
The consultation document 'In Work, Better Off' can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is 31st October 2007.
Government is targeting a one million reduction in those on incapacity benefit, and aiming to get an additional 300,000 lone parents and one million more older people into work. Yet in the Green Paper there is no evidence to suggest whether or how this is possible.
These figures are simply the necessary number to reach the Government's own target of an 80% employment rate, for which no reason is given. As the Work and Pensions Select Committee said in its May 2007 report, "there is a lack of clarity about precisely what the 80% aim represents and why it has been set".
For lone parents, the Government is proposing to make lone parents on benefit look for work when their youngest child is 12 by 2008, falling to the age of 7 by 2010. At the moment lone parents receive benefit until their child is 16.
These proposals have been heavily criticised by childcare groups. Chris Pond, a former Government Minister who now heads One Parent Families (OPF), said "a punitive approach would only impact badly on youngsters in one parent families - many of whom have already lost one parent".
OPF points out that the voluntary New Deal scheme has already doubled the chances of lone parents finding work, and that a punitive approach could be counter-productive. Failure to comply with the proposed new regime could result in benefits being cut, if parents decide to look after their children rather than return to work. Those with children over 12 and eventually 7 will lose lone parent benefit, and therefore be on Jobseekers' Allowance.
This seems to contradict what the new Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families told the Daycare Trust conference in June this year: "Staying at home or returning to work must be a choice for parents, and our role is to make that a real choice . . . to make both staying at home and returning to work practical and realistic, so that parents can do what is best for them and their children."
Bizarrely though the consultation paper states that "we have considered increasing the work-related responsibilities for carers and do not believe this would be appropriate". What are lone parents if not carers? As OPF states: "if they work they are accused of neglecting their childrens' needs and if they don't of scrounging from the State".
The Daycare Trust, OPF and the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) have highlighted the shortfall of childcare provision to enable more parents into work. CPAG is calling for "a government commitment to the same level of childcare investment as countries with more working lone parents, like Denmark and Sweden".
For disabled people, there is much more that needs to be done to break down employer prejudice (despite the Disability Discrimination Act). The mental health charity Rethink says "less than 40% of employers saying they would employ someone with mental illness, the government must do more to help reduce the prejudice and ignorance which surround mental health. Scotland invests eight times what the English government does on anti-stigma campaigns and has seen real results".
RADAR, the pan-disability charity, says the Government needs to invest more in skills training and childcare - pointing out that a quarter of children living in poverty in the UK has a disabled parent. RADAR's Liz Sayce said "increasing in-work tax credits, extending conditionality and broadening eligibility criteria for employment programmes does not equate to having radical new ideas for how to support people to get and keep work".
The civil service union PCS points out that over 15,000 Jobcentre staff have been cut over the last two years, and over 500 jobcentres and benefit offices closed. It is concerned that these, and further looming cuts, will undermine the welcome parts of the Green Paper to provide more individualised help.
The Government is proposing to outsource some of this work, and PCS has considerable doubts that there is the capacity in the private and voluntary sectors to carry out the functions. You can download PCS's response to the Freud Report (which informed the Government's Green Paper) which provides useful information about how these changes could and could not be delivered.
CPAG is also concerned about the proposed reform of the delivery: "if charities take on the role of policing the benefits system, the relationship of openness and trust with their clients that is a key factor in their success will be damaged, and vulnerable individuals will lose the protection of independent advocates who can stand up for their rights."
As well as issues around employer discrimination, the consultation also raises issues about the ability of workers to choose flexible working patterns. At present employees have the right to request flexible working patterns, but there is no obligation for employers to provide it.
The consultation document 'In Work, Better Off' can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is 31st October 2007.
Towards Single Equality legislation
The Government has a 2005 manifesto commitment to introduce a Single Equality Act. This consultation is a step towards that legislation, which will underpin the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) which will be established from October this year.
Current equality law is set out in nine Acts, four European Directives and a number of other regulations, orders and codes of guidance - and so it is hoped that a new Act would simplify, and many hope strengthen, existing legislation.
A number of campaigning organisations and trade unions have been campaigning for the Government to propose measures to close the gender pay gap. Currently women in full-time work earn 20% less than men, and this rises to 40% for part-time work.
Dr Katherine Rake, the Director of the Fawcett Society said, "At the current rate of change, it's going to take 140 years until women are paid equally - and the Government has missed a huge opportunity to speed that up. This is tinkering at the edges".
Like the Fawcett Society many trade unions, such as Amicus, support the introduction of mandatory pay audits and the right to bring class actions on behalf of groups of employees, as does public sector union Unison.
The Fawcett Society has set out its detailed proposals 'Gender Equality in the 21st Century' which provides detailed material of use to anyone responding to the consultation. There is also detailed information about the gender pay gap on the website of the Institute of Employment Rights.
One proposal that has been welcomed is the right for mothers to breastfeed in public. However, the National Childbirth Trust is keen that this is not limited to infants under one year old, as is proposed in the consultation.
There is currently no legal protection against age discrimination in the supply of goods, facilities and services, premises, education in schools, and other public functions. The law on this was recently changed so that it is now illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as gender, race and disability.
The anti-ageist proposals have been welcomed by Help the Aged, which has produced a useful guide setting out the changes on age discrimination.
Several trade unions and equality organisations are also calling for a strengthening in the powers of Employment Tribunals. Liz Sayce, Chief Executive of disability charity RADAR said, "Employment Tribunals can order compensation - but not re-instatement to the job, or changes in policies - the employment provisions are only half-powers"
The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Communities and Local Government website and the deadline for responses is Tuesday 4th September 2007.
Current equality law is set out in nine Acts, four European Directives and a number of other regulations, orders and codes of guidance - and so it is hoped that a new Act would simplify, and many hope strengthen, existing legislation.
A number of campaigning organisations and trade unions have been campaigning for the Government to propose measures to close the gender pay gap. Currently women in full-time work earn 20% less than men, and this rises to 40% for part-time work.
Dr Katherine Rake, the Director of the Fawcett Society said, "At the current rate of change, it's going to take 140 years until women are paid equally - and the Government has missed a huge opportunity to speed that up. This is tinkering at the edges".
Like the Fawcett Society many trade unions, such as Amicus, support the introduction of mandatory pay audits and the right to bring class actions on behalf of groups of employees, as does public sector union Unison.
The Fawcett Society has set out its detailed proposals 'Gender Equality in the 21st Century' which provides detailed material of use to anyone responding to the consultation. There is also detailed information about the gender pay gap on the website of the Institute of Employment Rights.
One proposal that has been welcomed is the right for mothers to breastfeed in public. However, the National Childbirth Trust is keen that this is not limited to infants under one year old, as is proposed in the consultation.
There is currently no legal protection against age discrimination in the supply of goods, facilities and services, premises, education in schools, and other public functions. The law on this was recently changed so that it is now illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, as well as gender, race and disability.
The anti-ageist proposals have been welcomed by Help the Aged, which has produced a useful guide setting out the changes on age discrimination.
Several trade unions and equality organisations are also calling for a strengthening in the powers of Employment Tribunals. Liz Sayce, Chief Executive of disability charity RADAR said, "Employment Tribunals can order compensation - but not re-instatement to the job, or changes in policies - the employment provisions are only half-powers"
The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Communities and Local Government website and the deadline for responses is Tuesday 4th September 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)