The National Minimum Wage (NMW) was the flagship policy of the first term New Labour Government. It directly benefited around two million workers and in every year since, until this year, was raised above the level of inflation.
The NMW has been criticised for being too low, and consecutive London mayors have backed a higher London living wage. However two loopholes remain for unscrupulous bosses: the lower youth rates and the ability to use tips to make up the pay to the level of the NMW.
It is this latter loophole that the Government is considering closing in a consultation. In the foreword Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), states "our view is that tips should be paid to the worker on top of their pay" instead of being used to make up the NMW.
Despite this apparent clarity the consultation document is peppered with phrases such as the "cost to the sector", "administrative burdens", "flexibility to employers", the importance of "protecting jobs", especially given the "adverse market conditions". Trade unionists will therefore be arguing that the Government does not delay implementation because of the recession.
The agreement to end this practice was announced following the 'Warwick II' talks in July, yet it has taken the Government over four months to open a consultation, which does not close until February – with legislation unlikely to come into force until a full year after the agreement.
Trade unions and socialists in Parliament will need to ensure the timetable does not slip further. Last year 95 MPs (over three-quarters of them Labour) signed an EDM supporting the Unite Fair Tips Charter Campaign, and calling for the abolition of this loophole. As far back as 2003, Labour MP Michael Connarty introduced a bill to remove this practice, which the Government then blocked.
The exclusion of tips is also supported by the Scottish TUC, whose Deputy General Secretary Dave Moxham stated, "very few people realise that some unscrupulous employers are lining their pockets with the tips which customers leave to thank the staff who serve them."
However, when people do realise they are outraged – as they were when it was exposed earlier this year that the Carluccio's chain of restaurants pay their waiting staff just £3.75 per hour as a basic wage – which seemed generous compared with the Hard Rock Café chain which paid some staff as little as £2.06 per hour before tips.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the BERR website, and the deadline for responses is 16th February 2009. Ensure that you or your trade union branch responds.
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Driving down road deaths
Over the last forty years there has been a steady and continuous decline in fatalities on Britain's roads. Last year was the first year for over 80 years in which less than 3,000 people died. Nevertheless, 2,946 fatalities or just over 8 deaths per day is still a high toll, and that's without factoring in the additional 28,000 who were seriously injured last year.
The Government has just unveiled its 'Road Safety Compliance' consultation to target "the reckless minority who flout the laws of the road" – particularly targeting those who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs and those who speed.
Speeding was recorded as a contributory factor in 727 road deaths last year, and the Government is proposing tougher penalties for those who exceed speed limits "by a very large margin" who could receive six points on their licence for driving at over 20mph above the limit. This move has not been welcomed by the road safety charity Brake, which points out that "all speeding is unlawful and at 35mph you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian you hit as at 30mph".
On drink driving, which costs 460 deaths per year, the Government appears resistant to lower the current blood alcohol level of 80mg/100ml as their research suggests that "almost all fatalities over the present limit had a blood alcohol concentration over 100mg/100ml". This is disputed by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) which advocates a 50mg/100ml limit. This lower limit, says PACTS, means "around 60 lives a year could be saved".
The Government admits that a lower limit "has been adopted in many other countries" – a fact that Brake highlights in its support for the lowering the UK limit – "one of the highest drink drive limits in Europe". However the Government is proposing to remove the right to a blood or urine test for those who test positive in breath tests – as this is "rendered unnecessary by the proven reliability of the breath test."
Driving under the influence of drugs presents some complex issues – as there is neither a simple roadside test nor any estimate of what levels of intoxication makes a driver unsafe. Therefore there should be caution about Government implications that any presence of any illegal drug should be a driving offence – after all there is little evidence that many illegal drugs would be any more damaging to drivers than excessive caffeine or other legal drugs. However that should not minimise the danger of driving under the influence of any drug – legal or illegal.
Road safety is also an issue about child safety - and particularly an issue for children from poor backgrounds: children from social class V are five times more likely to be killed on Britain's roads than those from social class I. As the Child Accident Prevention Trust points out, "children whose families have fewer resources tend to live near more dangerous road environments, have fewer provisions for safe places to play, and tend to go out as pedestrians more often than children from wealthier homes".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Transport website and the deadline for responses is 27th February 2009.
The Government has just unveiled its 'Road Safety Compliance' consultation to target "the reckless minority who flout the laws of the road" – particularly targeting those who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs and those who speed.
Speeding was recorded as a contributory factor in 727 road deaths last year, and the Government is proposing tougher penalties for those who exceed speed limits "by a very large margin" who could receive six points on their licence for driving at over 20mph above the limit. This move has not been welcomed by the road safety charity Brake, which points out that "all speeding is unlawful and at 35mph you are twice as likely to kill a pedestrian you hit as at 30mph".
On drink driving, which costs 460 deaths per year, the Government appears resistant to lower the current blood alcohol level of 80mg/100ml as their research suggests that "almost all fatalities over the present limit had a blood alcohol concentration over 100mg/100ml". This is disputed by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) which advocates a 50mg/100ml limit. This lower limit, says PACTS, means "around 60 lives a year could be saved".
The Government admits that a lower limit "has been adopted in many other countries" – a fact that Brake highlights in its support for the lowering the UK limit – "one of the highest drink drive limits in Europe". However the Government is proposing to remove the right to a blood or urine test for those who test positive in breath tests – as this is "rendered unnecessary by the proven reliability of the breath test."
Driving under the influence of drugs presents some complex issues – as there is neither a simple roadside test nor any estimate of what levels of intoxication makes a driver unsafe. Therefore there should be caution about Government implications that any presence of any illegal drug should be a driving offence – after all there is little evidence that many illegal drugs would be any more damaging to drivers than excessive caffeine or other legal drugs. However that should not minimise the danger of driving under the influence of any drug – legal or illegal.
Road safety is also an issue about child safety - and particularly an issue for children from poor backgrounds: children from social class V are five times more likely to be killed on Britain's roads than those from social class I. As the Child Accident Prevention Trust points out, "children whose families have fewer resources tend to live near more dangerous road environments, have fewer provisions for safe places to play, and tend to go out as pedestrians more often than children from wealthier homes".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the Department for Transport website and the deadline for responses is 27th February 2009.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Entrusting communities with Land?
The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting on the role for Community Land Trusts (CLTs) in delivering the Government's target "to provide 240,000 more homes a year in England by 2016". The Government states that CLTs, alongside housing associations, local authorities, Local Housing Companies and housing co-operatives , has a role to play in meeting this target.
CLTs’ origins can be traced back to the Chartists and the struggle for land reform. The aims of the movement were "To purchase land in order to demonstrate to the Working Class of the kingdom the value of land, as a means of making them independent of the grinding capitalist."
Despite the invocation of such a radical tradition, the Government seeks to co-opt CLTS rather than to rekindle any revolutionary verve. In fact, the consultation document sets out the Government’s goal to "help more people to own their own home". The Government then makes the bizarre statement that it "believes that this not only enables them to achieve their aspirations but also helps to meet additional objectives such as improving public services".
As with foundation hospitals, the Government is seeking to subvert co-operative terminology with CLTs. The document sets out a role for CLTs to be little more than providers of shared equity and part ownership schemes much like any housing association.
CLTs are supposed to be bolstered through the Community Land Trust Fund – which has £2m of loan funding on offer to develop CLTs – which makes them rather insignificant when the Government has already stated it is investing £8.4bn in housing over the next three years. The £2m fund drop in the housing need ocean may well be unattractive since "interest on such loans will be charged at a rate that will cover administrative costs, plus an element of profit to enable the fund to increase".
Nevertheless there are opportunities to empower communities who can establish their own CLT. A CLT must:
• provide a benefit to the local community; and
• ensure that the assets are not sold or developed except in a manner which the trust's members think benefits the local community.
A CLT must also ensure that:
• any profits from its activities will be used to benefit the local community;
• individuals who live or work in the specified area have the opportunity to become members of the trust; and
• the members of the trust control it.
Therefore the radical democratic origins remain, and – once established – CLTs will be prime candidates to be offered public assets, which will be transferred by the soon to be established 'Asset Transfer Unit' (ATU). The consultation states that the Government is currently reviewing the structures "to enable [CLTs] to successfully manage and own public assets". However, community activists should not get too excited – the ATU "will promote and support an increase in asset transfer . . . through the promotion of public-private-third sector partnerships".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCLG website and the deadline for responses is 31st December 2008.
CLTs’ origins can be traced back to the Chartists and the struggle for land reform. The aims of the movement were "To purchase land in order to demonstrate to the Working Class of the kingdom the value of land, as a means of making them independent of the grinding capitalist."
Despite the invocation of such a radical tradition, the Government seeks to co-opt CLTS rather than to rekindle any revolutionary verve. In fact, the consultation document sets out the Government’s goal to "help more people to own their own home". The Government then makes the bizarre statement that it "believes that this not only enables them to achieve their aspirations but also helps to meet additional objectives such as improving public services".
As with foundation hospitals, the Government is seeking to subvert co-operative terminology with CLTs. The document sets out a role for CLTs to be little more than providers of shared equity and part ownership schemes much like any housing association.
CLTs are supposed to be bolstered through the Community Land Trust Fund – which has £2m of loan funding on offer to develop CLTs – which makes them rather insignificant when the Government has already stated it is investing £8.4bn in housing over the next three years. The £2m fund drop in the housing need ocean may well be unattractive since "interest on such loans will be charged at a rate that will cover administrative costs, plus an element of profit to enable the fund to increase".
Nevertheless there are opportunities to empower communities who can establish their own CLT. A CLT must:
• provide a benefit to the local community; and
• ensure that the assets are not sold or developed except in a manner which the trust's members think benefits the local community.
A CLT must also ensure that:
• any profits from its activities will be used to benefit the local community;
• individuals who live or work in the specified area have the opportunity to become members of the trust; and
• the members of the trust control it.
Therefore the radical democratic origins remain, and – once established – CLTs will be prime candidates to be offered public assets, which will be transferred by the soon to be established 'Asset Transfer Unit' (ATU). The consultation states that the Government is currently reviewing the structures "to enable [CLTs] to successfully manage and own public assets". However, community activists should not get too excited – the ATU "will promote and support an increase in asset transfer . . . through the promotion of public-private-third sector partnerships".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCLG website and the deadline for responses is 31st December 2008.
Failure regime for the NHS
The Department of Health (DoH) has issued a consultation paper on 'a regime for unsustainable NHS providers'. This is a further piece in completing the framework for an NHS market. Just as the NHS market model has been created, so now is the creation of market failure and a quasi-insolvency regime for that failure.
From 2009/10 there will be a new performance regime for NHS trusts and Foundation Trusts, in which trusts could be designated as "underperforming", "seriously underperforming", or "challenged" – the latter being the equivalent of a school being placed under "special measures".
In such a scenario, an NHS trust would be reviewed after a year in "challenged" status and then a decision taken on whether to: remove (improve) that status; keep the trust on probation; or deem the trust unsustainable and wind it down.
If the final decision is taken, then within 120 days all the services could be transferred to other organisations. Campaigners are rightly concerned that this could be used to speed up the transfer of NHS provision to the private sector.
The impact assessment that accompanies the consultation estimates that 2.1 per cent of NHS and Foundation Trusts will fail every year – which equates to about six per year. By cutting the time that trusts are in deficit, the Government estimates it will save £200m per year – but isn't likely to be offset by this new bureaucratic regime?
In the case of Foundation Trusts, failure would mean the removal of foundation status and the reversion to being an NHS trust – and then the same system would apply. Of course, despite being "independent", their debts – which could include PFI deals – would naturally transfer to the taxpayer.
Campaigners have also raised concerns about democratic oversight. Once a trust is designated "challenged", it seems that local opposition would no longer be able to block reconfiguration plans. Even the NHS Confederation has stated that there is a risk the regime could be used to "subvert the democratic process" by imposing reconfiguration.
What is clear is that trusts are being evaluated not primarily on their clinical standards, but on their financial standing. "Challenged" status in the DoH consultation document is referred to solely as "financially challenged" by the Health Services Journal – and while emphasising continuity of service provision for patients, the cost savings estimates reveal the DoH's prime motivation.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DoH website, and the deadline for responses is 3rd December 2008. Organisations representing patients or staff in the NHS need to look forensically at these proposals could have a massive impact on local service provision and accountability.
From 2009/10 there will be a new performance regime for NHS trusts and Foundation Trusts, in which trusts could be designated as "underperforming", "seriously underperforming", or "challenged" – the latter being the equivalent of a school being placed under "special measures".
In such a scenario, an NHS trust would be reviewed after a year in "challenged" status and then a decision taken on whether to: remove (improve) that status; keep the trust on probation; or deem the trust unsustainable and wind it down.
If the final decision is taken, then within 120 days all the services could be transferred to other organisations. Campaigners are rightly concerned that this could be used to speed up the transfer of NHS provision to the private sector.
The impact assessment that accompanies the consultation estimates that 2.1 per cent of NHS and Foundation Trusts will fail every year – which equates to about six per year. By cutting the time that trusts are in deficit, the Government estimates it will save £200m per year – but isn't likely to be offset by this new bureaucratic regime?
In the case of Foundation Trusts, failure would mean the removal of foundation status and the reversion to being an NHS trust – and then the same system would apply. Of course, despite being "independent", their debts – which could include PFI deals – would naturally transfer to the taxpayer.
Campaigners have also raised concerns about democratic oversight. Once a trust is designated "challenged", it seems that local opposition would no longer be able to block reconfiguration plans. Even the NHS Confederation has stated that there is a risk the regime could be used to "subvert the democratic process" by imposing reconfiguration.
What is clear is that trusts are being evaluated not primarily on their clinical standards, but on their financial standing. "Challenged" status in the DoH consultation document is referred to solely as "financially challenged" by the Health Services Journal – and while emphasising continuity of service provision for patients, the cost savings estimates reveal the DoH's prime motivation.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DoH website, and the deadline for responses is 3rd December 2008. Organisations representing patients or staff in the NHS need to look forensically at these proposals could have a massive impact on local service provision and accountability.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Heathrow: air pollution expansion?
The Department for Transport is consulting on an Equalities Impact Assessment of Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport - looking at the effect on the local community of any potential expansion at Heathrow. The Government was forced to consult following a legal threat from Friends of the Earth.
According to local MP John McDonnell, who has been campaigning against expansion, "it is clear that the runway proposal will be in serious breach of the European Commission's air pollution legislation and following meetings with EU Commission representatives it is equally clear that the Commission has the power and will to act to enforce its new pollution limits".
This consultation therefore has the potential to kill Heathrow expansion plans dead in the water, and the Government is still wading through the 70,000 responses to the original consultation, which closed in February 2008, on expanding Heathrow capacity.
The consultation document reveals that an initial assessment, by a DfT-commissioned private consultancy, shows that ethnic minorities and those from income deprived areas would be "likely to experience significant adverse impacts" in noise pollution if extra flights or a third runway were approved.
The effects of air pollution from extra flights are even more extreme, affecting "twelve wards where children are disproportionately represented . . . furthermore ten pre-schools, twelve primary schools and two secondary schools are likely to be negatively affected by NO2 increases". If a third runway is added, it is "likely to result in negative health, educational and development effects for children in the affected wards and schools. Negative second round impacts for overall deprivation levels may be experienced".
John Stewart of the campaign HACAN Clearskies, said, "The one clear message is that a huge number of people from minority communities will be badly affected if the expansion of Heathrow goes ahead. But this consultation fails to spell out just how it will affect people. That is the more important part. It gives every sign of being a rushed consultant document commissioned in haste by a government department which was forced into doing the assessment by the threat of legal action".
For those who care about their environment and community in west London, it is essential you respond to this consultation by the 9th November deadline. The full consultation document can be downloaded from the DfT website.
According to local MP John McDonnell, who has been campaigning against expansion, "it is clear that the runway proposal will be in serious breach of the European Commission's air pollution legislation and following meetings with EU Commission representatives it is equally clear that the Commission has the power and will to act to enforce its new pollution limits".
This consultation therefore has the potential to kill Heathrow expansion plans dead in the water, and the Government is still wading through the 70,000 responses to the original consultation, which closed in February 2008, on expanding Heathrow capacity.
The consultation document reveals that an initial assessment, by a DfT-commissioned private consultancy, shows that ethnic minorities and those from income deprived areas would be "likely to experience significant adverse impacts" in noise pollution if extra flights or a third runway were approved.
The effects of air pollution from extra flights are even more extreme, affecting "twelve wards where children are disproportionately represented . . . furthermore ten pre-schools, twelve primary schools and two secondary schools are likely to be negatively affected by NO2 increases". If a third runway is added, it is "likely to result in negative health, educational and development effects for children in the affected wards and schools. Negative second round impacts for overall deprivation levels may be experienced".
John Stewart of the campaign HACAN Clearskies, said, "The one clear message is that a huge number of people from minority communities will be badly affected if the expansion of Heathrow goes ahead. But this consultation fails to spell out just how it will affect people. That is the more important part. It gives every sign of being a rushed consultant document commissioned in haste by a government department which was forced into doing the assessment by the threat of legal action".
For those who care about their environment and community in west London, it is essential you respond to this consultation by the 9th November deadline. The full consultation document can be downloaded from the DfT website.
Friday, 3 October 2008
Don't Stop the Music!
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) is conducting a consultation on 'legislative options to address illicit peer-to-peer file sharing', or downloading music from the internet as it's better known to most of us. This follows the Gowers Review in December 2006, which recommended "industry agreement of protocols . . . to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'".
It all began in the late 1990s with the emergence of Napster, as US based file sharing site which enabled users to share their music files, which as a dotcom company was closed down in 2001 following a lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). As a result of the publicity from the lawsuit, launched a couple of years earlier, Napster's subscriber base increased from 9 million to 50 million.
In the Napster case, multimillionaire artists like Dr Dre and Metallica were wheeled into court to bemoan lost revenue on behalf their corporate publishers. What the case sparked was a flowering of new improved subscriber-less technologies that enabled file sharing without the corporate hub of a Napster.
Research cited in the consultation shows that between 25%-43% of all internet users download copyrighted music – however this rises to 63% of young people, who download an average of 53 tracks per month. But is today's generation of young people so different to the one that preceded it – who bought bulk purchases of TDK-90s to record albums from our mates onto tape?
And is the music industry really losing £1bn over five years, as they allege? Young people download music, just as they copied it onto blank tapes a generation ago, because they can't afford it – and it remains overpriced. So the music industry is losing only a tiny fraction, as most of the illicit downloaders have little disposable income.
Don't get me wrong, I think musicians should be able to make a living from their work, but it's highly questionable that the ability to make a living is seriously threatened – and musicians agree! A survey of US professional musicians in 2004 found that 60% thought lawsuits against individuals would not benefit them in any way, and only 3% thought the internet had a negative effect on their ability to protect their work.
This great mutually-beneficial sharing phenomena is costing the corporates though, and so the government department dedicated to business is consulting on ways to tackle the 'problem'. The music publishing division of EMI made a profit of £106m last year, meanwhile Sony BMG currently scrapes by on a profit of over £100m per quarter.
Today it isn't just music which is downloaded, but films, books, and even PC games – which resulted in Topware Interactive successfully suing a British woman for over £16,000 for sharing a 3D pinball game. Which rather begs the question – why is the Government consulting on further enforcement when prosecutions, with generous settlements, are already being secured?
Some of the options under consideration look largely incompatible with various EC Directives, while others simply implore ISPs and copyright holders to conspire more effectively. The consultation document can be downloaded (legally) from the DBERR website, and the deadline for responses is 30th October 2008.
It all began in the late 1990s with the emergence of Napster, as US based file sharing site which enabled users to share their music files, which as a dotcom company was closed down in 2001 following a lawsuit from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). As a result of the publicity from the lawsuit, launched a couple of years earlier, Napster's subscriber base increased from 9 million to 50 million.
In the Napster case, multimillionaire artists like Dr Dre and Metallica were wheeled into court to bemoan lost revenue on behalf their corporate publishers. What the case sparked was a flowering of new improved subscriber-less technologies that enabled file sharing without the corporate hub of a Napster.
Research cited in the consultation shows that between 25%-43% of all internet users download copyrighted music – however this rises to 63% of young people, who download an average of 53 tracks per month. But is today's generation of young people so different to the one that preceded it – who bought bulk purchases of TDK-90s to record albums from our mates onto tape?
And is the music industry really losing £1bn over five years, as they allege? Young people download music, just as they copied it onto blank tapes a generation ago, because they can't afford it – and it remains overpriced. So the music industry is losing only a tiny fraction, as most of the illicit downloaders have little disposable income.
Don't get me wrong, I think musicians should be able to make a living from their work, but it's highly questionable that the ability to make a living is seriously threatened – and musicians agree! A survey of US professional musicians in 2004 found that 60% thought lawsuits against individuals would not benefit them in any way, and only 3% thought the internet had a negative effect on their ability to protect their work.
This great mutually-beneficial sharing phenomena is costing the corporates though, and so the government department dedicated to business is consulting on ways to tackle the 'problem'. The music publishing division of EMI made a profit of £106m last year, meanwhile Sony BMG currently scrapes by on a profit of over £100m per quarter.
Today it isn't just music which is downloaded, but films, books, and even PC games – which resulted in Topware Interactive successfully suing a British woman for over £16,000 for sharing a 3D pinball game. Which rather begs the question – why is the Government consulting on further enforcement when prosecutions, with generous settlements, are already being secured?
Some of the options under consideration look largely incompatible with various EC Directives, while others simply implore ISPs and copyright holders to conspire more effectively. The consultation document can be downloaded (legally) from the DBERR website, and the deadline for responses is 30th October 2008.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
A Constitution for the NHS?
Perhaps the greatest lasting achievement of the Attlee Government, the NHS is a testament to Britain's post-war social democratic consensus. Today the NHS costs £100bn per year, and remains the world’s largest publicly funded health service. But does it need a constitution?
Sixty years after its foundation, a very different Labour government is now proposing that the NHS has a constitution, which, the Department of Health states, "renews our commitment to the enduring principles of the NHS . . . for everyone, paid for out of taxes, based on clinical need rather than an individual's ability to pay".
A cynic might suggest that drafting a NHS constitution sixty years after the organisation has been founded might be an attempt to bask in the reflected glory of the work of those sixty years ago. Such cynicism will be nurtured by the fact that the constitution that is out for consultation sets out only "existing legal rights" alongside "values" and "principles".
Reflecting New Labour's obsession, the right "to choice" may be established – although this will have to pass through Parliament first, where presumably it will acquire a legally cogent definition. In an era of outsourcing, competition, PFI and internal markets, aspirations to accountability and a sense of public ownership look increasingly vulnerable – even with this loosely phrased constitution.
Despite such cynicism the document could provide a clear and educational guide for patients, as well as engendering a public debate about the role of the NHS. As such, the proposal for a NHS constitution is backed by both New Labour and the Tories, the British Medical Association – and tentatively by the King's Fund health think tank.
However, the constitution is composed flexibly enough to accommodate the increasing role of the private sector – so those hoping for a turn away from, or a bulwark against, the further marketisation of the NHS will be disappointed.
Health campaigners working in the NHS will welcome the pledge that "the NHS will strive to engage staff in decisions that affect them and the services they provide . . . all staff will be empowered to put forward ways to deliver better and safer services for patients". This phrase should be quoted to the Health Secretary and Manchester Mental Health & Social Care Trust until Karen Reissmann is reinstated – following her dismissal in November 2007 for criticising the transfer of NHS work to the voluntary sector.
The consultation on 'the NHS Constitution' is open until 17th October 2008.
Sixty years after its foundation, a very different Labour government is now proposing that the NHS has a constitution, which, the Department of Health states, "renews our commitment to the enduring principles of the NHS . . . for everyone, paid for out of taxes, based on clinical need rather than an individual's ability to pay".
A cynic might suggest that drafting a NHS constitution sixty years after the organisation has been founded might be an attempt to bask in the reflected glory of the work of those sixty years ago. Such cynicism will be nurtured by the fact that the constitution that is out for consultation sets out only "existing legal rights" alongside "values" and "principles".
Reflecting New Labour's obsession, the right "to choice" may be established – although this will have to pass through Parliament first, where presumably it will acquire a legally cogent definition. In an era of outsourcing, competition, PFI and internal markets, aspirations to accountability and a sense of public ownership look increasingly vulnerable – even with this loosely phrased constitution.
Despite such cynicism the document could provide a clear and educational guide for patients, as well as engendering a public debate about the role of the NHS. As such, the proposal for a NHS constitution is backed by both New Labour and the Tories, the British Medical Association – and tentatively by the King's Fund health think tank.
However, the constitution is composed flexibly enough to accommodate the increasing role of the private sector – so those hoping for a turn away from, or a bulwark against, the further marketisation of the NHS will be disappointed.
Health campaigners working in the NHS will welcome the pledge that "the NHS will strive to engage staff in decisions that affect them and the services they provide . . . all staff will be empowered to put forward ways to deliver better and safer services for patients". This phrase should be quoted to the Health Secretary and Manchester Mental Health & Social Care Trust until Karen Reissmann is reinstated – following her dismissal in November 2007 for criticising the transfer of NHS work to the voluntary sector.
The consultation on 'the NHS Constitution' is open until 17th October 2008.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Welfare or unfair?
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell has launched a consultation on further welfare reform 'No one written off'. It was welcomed by former Conservative Social Security Secretary Peter Lilley who said, "I welcome him [Purnell] announcing policies that I originally enunciated ahead of the 1997 election".
The plans, states Purnell, will:
These proposals are, according to Purnell, are "inspired by the reforms proposed by David Freud" – an investment banker who was commissioned by the Government to review welfare services. In his report, Freud describes welfare as "this annual multi-billion pound market" which could "attract major players from around the world".
It is this that alarms the Sheffield Welfare Action Network – which, in a detailed critique, concludes, "we are moving towards a US style minimal, high surveillance and invasive welfare system".
The General Secretary of the civil service union PCS, Mark Serwotka, states that "the public sector has consistently out performed the private sector in getting people back into work" - challenging New Labour's 'what works' mantra. As Serwotka states, "these proposals are regressive and draconian, going further than even Thatcher dared in the 1980s".
This is not an issue that those in work can afford to ignore. Aside from the moral disgrace that the policy proposal is, there is also the reality that more and more people will be pushed into the welfare system as the looming recession hits. Unemployment has been rising for the past seven months, and a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee predicted that unemployment would reach 2 million by the end of the year. Meanwhile demand for staff (job vacancies) has fallen at the fastest rate for seven years.
The consultation document 'No One Written Off' can be downloaded from the DWP website and the deadline for responses is 22nd October 2008.
The plans, states Purnell, will:
- Support "Incapacity Benefit claimants back into work by paying private, public and voluntary sector providers from the benefit savings they achieve"
- Give "private and voluntary providers the right to bid for any back-to-work service"
- Test proposals for "full-time work programmes with private and voluntary providers" – just to keep receiving Jobseeker's Allowance.
These proposals are, according to Purnell, are "inspired by the reforms proposed by David Freud" – an investment banker who was commissioned by the Government to review welfare services. In his report, Freud describes welfare as "this annual multi-billion pound market" which could "attract major players from around the world".
It is this that alarms the Sheffield Welfare Action Network – which, in a detailed critique, concludes, "we are moving towards a US style minimal, high surveillance and invasive welfare system".
The General Secretary of the civil service union PCS, Mark Serwotka, states that "the public sector has consistently out performed the private sector in getting people back into work" - challenging New Labour's 'what works' mantra. As Serwotka states, "these proposals are regressive and draconian, going further than even Thatcher dared in the 1980s".
This is not an issue that those in work can afford to ignore. Aside from the moral disgrace that the policy proposal is, there is also the reality that more and more people will be pushed into the welfare system as the looming recession hits. Unemployment has been rising for the past seven months, and a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee predicted that unemployment would reach 2 million by the end of the year. Meanwhile demand for staff (job vacancies) has fallen at the fastest rate for seven years.
The consultation document 'No One Written Off' can be downloaded from the DWP website and the deadline for responses is 22nd October 2008.
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Right to Train?
The Government is currently consulting on the right to request time to train, which states Secretary of State for Innovation Universities and Skills, John Denham, would give "all employees in England a right to a serious conversation with their employer about their skills development".
It doesn't seem revolutionary, but the Government insists it will "spark the skills revolution we need" – and indeed we do: as the consultation document states, the UK workforce languishes 16th out of 29 on the OECD scale on skills; and only 35% of UK employers have a training budget. Nevertheless in these figures reflect progress from 1997 – for example two and a half times as many workers start apprenticeships each year now compared with 1996/97.
In 2003 the Government introduced the similarly-couched right to request flexible working, which was introduced for a limited group of employees. These 'rights to request' are exactly that, they carry no obligation on the employer to grant them, and any one of a range of about ten 'business reasons' is enough to reject them. However, the Government estimates that 92% of requests for flexible working have been accepted.
In granting this constrained right for workers, the Government has made concessions to business. If, following this consultation, the new right is implemented then the Government will delay until 2015 the scheduled 2010 review into whether workers should have the legal right to workplace training where they lack at least a level 2 qualification (i.e. equivalent to five good GCSEs). As John Hannett of USDAW stated, training is win-win, "access to training in work-related skills helps to build morale and loyalty amongst employees. In addition, the company’s skills base and productivity increases".
Nevertheless the Government is optimistic that the measure will engender a culture change in favour of lifelong learning, leading to up to 300,000 people each year undertaking training as a result of granting this right.
One issue of contention in the consultation paper relates to the role of unions and union learning reps. When the Prime Minister announced the proposals in May, the TUC, in a detailed response, welcomed them as they would "give unions - and in particular union learning representatives (ULRs) - an important role in helping individuals to shape their requests to learn new skills". Despite this, the Government clearly states "there will be no legal requirement for employers or employees to engage with their unions and ULRs on time to train". There are fears that the role of ULRs in coordinating union-led learning initiatives could be undermined.
Whether the Government's estimations are realised, it needs to think of innovative ways to reach many of those most in need of skills training: the one-third of people with poor literacy and numeracy that are currently on benefits.
The consultation document 'Time to Train' can be downloaded from the DIUS website. The deadline for responses is 10th September 2008.
It doesn't seem revolutionary, but the Government insists it will "spark the skills revolution we need" – and indeed we do: as the consultation document states, the UK workforce languishes 16th out of 29 on the OECD scale on skills; and only 35% of UK employers have a training budget. Nevertheless in these figures reflect progress from 1997 – for example two and a half times as many workers start apprenticeships each year now compared with 1996/97.
In 2003 the Government introduced the similarly-couched right to request flexible working, which was introduced for a limited group of employees. These 'rights to request' are exactly that, they carry no obligation on the employer to grant them, and any one of a range of about ten 'business reasons' is enough to reject them. However, the Government estimates that 92% of requests for flexible working have been accepted.
In granting this constrained right for workers, the Government has made concessions to business. If, following this consultation, the new right is implemented then the Government will delay until 2015 the scheduled 2010 review into whether workers should have the legal right to workplace training where they lack at least a level 2 qualification (i.e. equivalent to five good GCSEs). As John Hannett of USDAW stated, training is win-win, "access to training in work-related skills helps to build morale and loyalty amongst employees. In addition, the company’s skills base and productivity increases".
Nevertheless the Government is optimistic that the measure will engender a culture change in favour of lifelong learning, leading to up to 300,000 people each year undertaking training as a result of granting this right.
One issue of contention in the consultation paper relates to the role of unions and union learning reps. When the Prime Minister announced the proposals in May, the TUC, in a detailed response, welcomed them as they would "give unions - and in particular union learning representatives (ULRs) - an important role in helping individuals to shape their requests to learn new skills". Despite this, the Government clearly states "there will be no legal requirement for employers or employees to engage with their unions and ULRs on time to train". There are fears that the role of ULRs in coordinating union-led learning initiatives could be undermined.
Whether the Government's estimations are realised, it needs to think of innovative ways to reach many of those most in need of skills training: the one-third of people with poor literacy and numeracy that are currently on benefits.
The consultation document 'Time to Train' can be downloaded from the DIUS website. The deadline for responses is 10th September 2008.
Saturday, 12 July 2008
The Future of Tobacco Control
The Government is currently consulting on 'The Future of Tobacco Control' and identifies four main areas requiring further attention:
1. Reducing smoking rates and health inequalities caused by smoking
2. Protecting children and young people from smoking
3. Supporting smokers to quit
4. Helping those who cannot quit
Just over a year ago, the Government banned on smoking in public places. Likewise it raised the age for buying tobacco products from 16 to 18. According to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) the public are now in favour of further controls to discourage smoking, including 85% who want retailers convicted of selling tobacco illegally to children to be banned from selling tobacco products.
The last decade has seen a decline in the proportion of smokers from 26% to 22%. Yet 87,000 deaths per year are directly attributable to smoking – as the consultation document points out.
In the consultation paper it states quite unsurprisingly: "The chances of being a smoker are substantially greater among people living in rented housing, receiving state benefits, who don't have access to a car, are unemployed or living in overcrowded accommodation". Yet you can sense the incredulity when the following statement "the reasons why this should be the case are not well understood".
It's ironic that the Department of Health does not understand this, when the NHS Direct website clearly states, "unemployment, poverty and lack of education can trigger addictions to develop, as can stress and professional or emotional pressure". As the consultation document notes, smoking remains the primary reason in the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor.
HM Revenue & Customs’ latest estimates on smuggled tobacco show that around 18% of cigarette and 62% of handrolling tobacco consumption is smuggled, while 70% of all large scale cigarette seizures are counterfeit. According to ASH, 1 in 20 smokers in professional groups admit to buying smuggled tobacco but among poorer smokers the figure rises to 1 in 5. This inevitability should encourage the Government to think of other ways other prices rises to tackle smoking.
One of the most publicised suggestions to reducing smoking in the consultation is the plan to ban the display of cigarettes in shops, and to remove branding from cigarette packets so they have "plain packaging" apart from information required by law and health warnings.
Those interested may also want to refer to the Smokefree Action Coalition’s (SAC) recently published ten-point national action plan. SAC comprises most of the major cancer and heart disease charities, trade unions such as the RCN, the Socialist Health Association, and local action groups.
The consultation document 'The Future of Tobacco Control' can be downloaded from the Department of Health website. The deadline for responses is 8th September 2008.
1. Reducing smoking rates and health inequalities caused by smoking
2. Protecting children and young people from smoking
3. Supporting smokers to quit
4. Helping those who cannot quit
Just over a year ago, the Government banned on smoking in public places. Likewise it raised the age for buying tobacco products from 16 to 18. According to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) the public are now in favour of further controls to discourage smoking, including 85% who want retailers convicted of selling tobacco illegally to children to be banned from selling tobacco products.
The last decade has seen a decline in the proportion of smokers from 26% to 22%. Yet 87,000 deaths per year are directly attributable to smoking – as the consultation document points out.
In the consultation paper it states quite unsurprisingly: "The chances of being a smoker are substantially greater among people living in rented housing, receiving state benefits, who don't have access to a car, are unemployed or living in overcrowded accommodation". Yet you can sense the incredulity when the following statement "the reasons why this should be the case are not well understood".
It's ironic that the Department of Health does not understand this, when the NHS Direct website clearly states, "unemployment, poverty and lack of education can trigger addictions to develop, as can stress and professional or emotional pressure". As the consultation document notes, smoking remains the primary reason in the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor.
HM Revenue & Customs’ latest estimates on smuggled tobacco show that around 18% of cigarette and 62% of handrolling tobacco consumption is smuggled, while 70% of all large scale cigarette seizures are counterfeit. According to ASH, 1 in 20 smokers in professional groups admit to buying smuggled tobacco but among poorer smokers the figure rises to 1 in 5. This inevitability should encourage the Government to think of other ways other prices rises to tackle smoking.
One of the most publicised suggestions to reducing smoking in the consultation is the plan to ban the display of cigarettes in shops, and to remove branding from cigarette packets so they have "plain packaging" apart from information required by law and health warnings.
Those interested may also want to refer to the Smokefree Action Coalition’s (SAC) recently published ten-point national action plan. SAC comprises most of the major cancer and heart disease charities, trade unions such as the RCN, the Socialist Health Association, and local action groups.
The consultation document 'The Future of Tobacco Control' can be downloaded from the Department of Health website. The deadline for responses is 8th September 2008.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Clash over the Titans
The Government is consulting on proposals for three new 'titan prisons' based on its projection that the prison population will rise to over 95,000 by 2014. The Government aims to have the first titan prison operational by 2012. The three locations for the titans will be London, the West Midlands and the north-west, where available prison places are currently outweighed by demand.
New Labour came to power promising to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Since then it has overseen a massive rise in the prison population from 60,000 in 1997 to over 80,000 today. The UK now locks up more people than any other European country.
Each titan prison will provide 2,500 prison places, which the consultation paper states will be through five 500-place units within a single perimeter. Brian Caton, General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said "we are not affecting many of the people we are releasing . . . because of overcrowding". Yet, overcrowding is already built into these designs. The Ministry of Justice states that in fact titans will provide "2,100 uncrowded places, with the capacity to hold up to 2,500 prisoners through planned overcrowding".
The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, states that the proposals are "flying in the face of our, and others' evidence, that smaller prisons work better than large ones. They may be more efficient, but at the cost of being less effective."
The large sites required to build titans (a minimum of 50 acres) have also raised concerns that the locations will be remote and will therefore hinder access for prisoners' families – a key component of rehabilitation. Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers states that all the evidence is "for smaller units close to where prisoners live". Sarah Salmon, assistant director of Action for Prisoners' Families, is concerned that, "titan prisons will result in more prisoners being held further from home, making it harder for them to maintain family contact. And that will impact on levels of re-offending."
In the consultation paper, the Prisons Minister states that "prisons are the right place for the most serious and dangerous offenders" – but around 15% of the prison population is serving a sentence of less than one year, and only 9% is serving a life sentence, as BBC figures show. The Prison Reform Trust states that "community punishments have been proven to be often more effective than short prison sentences".
You can debate prisons policy online on the Justice Select Committee online inquiry: Justice Reinvestment – which allows you to debate criminal justice system costs. The Howard League points out that "the government says that each new titan prison will cost some £390 million for the land and the build. For this we could have 13 brand new secondary schools or four big new hospitals with 4,000 beds AND 122 new operating theatres".
The consultation document 'Titan prisons' can be downloaded from the Ministry of Justice website. The deadline for responses is 28th August 2008.
New Labour came to power promising to be "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Since then it has overseen a massive rise in the prison population from 60,000 in 1997 to over 80,000 today. The UK now locks up more people than any other European country.
Each titan prison will provide 2,500 prison places, which the consultation paper states will be through five 500-place units within a single perimeter. Brian Caton, General Secretary of the Prison Officers Association, said "we are not affecting many of the people we are releasing . . . because of overcrowding". Yet, overcrowding is already built into these designs. The Ministry of Justice states that in fact titans will provide "2,100 uncrowded places, with the capacity to hold up to 2,500 prisoners through planned overcrowding".
The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Anne Owers, states that the proposals are "flying in the face of our, and others' evidence, that smaller prisons work better than large ones. They may be more efficient, but at the cost of being less effective."
The large sites required to build titans (a minimum of 50 acres) have also raised concerns that the locations will be remote and will therefore hinder access for prisoners' families – a key component of rehabilitation. Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers states that all the evidence is "for smaller units close to where prisoners live". Sarah Salmon, assistant director of Action for Prisoners' Families, is concerned that, "titan prisons will result in more prisoners being held further from home, making it harder for them to maintain family contact. And that will impact on levels of re-offending."
In the consultation paper, the Prisons Minister states that "prisons are the right place for the most serious and dangerous offenders" – but around 15% of the prison population is serving a sentence of less than one year, and only 9% is serving a life sentence, as BBC figures show. The Prison Reform Trust states that "community punishments have been proven to be often more effective than short prison sentences".
You can debate prisons policy online on the Justice Select Committee online inquiry: Justice Reinvestment – which allows you to debate criminal justice system costs. The Howard League points out that "the government says that each new titan prison will cost some £390 million for the land and the build. For this we could have 13 brand new secondary schools or four big new hospitals with 4,000 beds AND 122 new operating theatres".
The consultation document 'Titan prisons' can be downloaded from the Ministry of Justice website. The deadline for responses is 28th August 2008.
Monday, 16 June 2008
The commercial generation?
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has opened a new consultation 'Assessing the Impact of the Commercial World on Children's Wellbeing - A Call for Evidence'. The DCSF states that "Some evidence suggests that the combination of a lowering in the age at which children begin to engage with the commercial world, along with an increase in the quantity of commercial messages targeted at children, may have some outcomes which are detrimental for children's wellbeing".
However, the DCSF states, the "evidence is not clear. In particular, there is a gap in understanding properly the impact that cumulative exposure to shopping, advertising and commercial messaging may have on children’s wellbeing". And so it needs your help, and by 30th June.
The Advertising Standards Agency states that common issues surrounding children and advertising are:
A more materialistic society and commercialised world also has consequences as social relationships are reduced to economic ones, and children compete rather than co-operate and share. Last year a UNICEF study put the UK, along with the US, at the bottom ranking on children's well-being. Among its findings was that "the percentage of children who report that their peers are 'kind and helpful' varies from a high of 80 percent or more in Switzerland and Portugal to less than 50 percent in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom".
In early June it was reported that for the second year running, the number of children living in poverty has increased. As Barnardo's states, "a third of children in poverty in the UK go without meals, or toys, or clothes that they need".
Details of the consultation 'Assessing the Impact of the Commercial World on Children's Wellbeing - A Call for Evidence' can be downloaded from the DCSF website, and the deadline for responses is 30th June. There is a version of the consultation for children, parents and for interested parties.
However, the DCSF states, the "evidence is not clear. In particular, there is a gap in understanding properly the impact that cumulative exposure to shopping, advertising and commercial messaging may have on children’s wellbeing". And so it needs your help, and by 30th June.
The Advertising Standards Agency states that common issues surrounding children and advertising are:
- Making children desire things they cannot afford or would not be able to use
- Pester power: encouraging children to pester their parents for advertised products or services.
- Showing children in unsafe or dangerous situations that other kids might emulate.
- Making children feel inferior, especially if they don’t buy the products or services shown in the ads.
- Showing children in a sexual way. I.e. wearing make-up and glamorous clothes
- Advertising soft drinks & high fat / sugar foods to children
A more materialistic society and commercialised world also has consequences as social relationships are reduced to economic ones, and children compete rather than co-operate and share. Last year a UNICEF study put the UK, along with the US, at the bottom ranking on children's well-being. Among its findings was that "the percentage of children who report that their peers are 'kind and helpful' varies from a high of 80 percent or more in Switzerland and Portugal to less than 50 percent in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom".
In early June it was reported that for the second year running, the number of children living in poverty has increased. As Barnardo's states, "a third of children in poverty in the UK go without meals, or toys, or clothes that they need".
Details of the consultation 'Assessing the Impact of the Commercial World on Children's Wellbeing - A Call for Evidence' can be downloaded from the DCSF website, and the deadline for responses is 30th June. There is a version of the consultation for children, parents and for interested parties.
Friday, 30 May 2008
No IDea
The Home Office is consulting on the implementation of Identity cards in its consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008', which details the roll-out of ID cards to foreign nationals, airport workers, young people and then to the whole population . . . "voluntarily".
From November 2008, the UK Border Agency will be charged with issuing biometric ID cards (including fingerprints) to foreign nationals. This according to the Home consultation document will "protect the community against crime, illegal immigration, and terrorism".
However, a cursory scan of the internet reveals that crime, immigration and terrorism are still present in countries with ID cards. The ID card has always been a solution looking for a problem, and the consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' only serves to highlight this fact.
Desperately seeking a reason for ID cards, the Home Office have allowed nonsense such as this to be printed: "more frequently than before we have to prove who we are to people who do not know us: for example when we apply for jobs, use public services, travel abroad and open bank accounts".
But the fact is that mechanisms and forms of ID already exist for all these purposes – and this has not become more frequent in recent years. For decades now, people have worked, used public services, travelled abroad and even had a bank account without needing an ID card. Indeed, later in the consultation paper it states that ID cards will provide "the same level of proof as a passport for confirming your identity", so why are ID cards necessary?
Next in line, after foreign nationals, are airport workers who have been told they must pay £30 for an ID card from 2009 to work in the job they already do. The Unite union has stated that the workforce at airports already "undergoes lengthy and vigorous pre-employment checks", and therefore "see little additional benefit stemming from the introduction of identity cards".
The National Union of Students is also "extremely concerned" about the Government's proposals to issue young people with ID cards "on a voluntary basis" from 2010: "They say that the card will be 'voluntary', but those students who decide not to have an ID card will encounter difficulties when applying for student loans and bank accounts", and so in practice the card becomes compulsory. From 2011/12 the scheme "voluntarily" rolls out to the rest of the population.
The NO2ID campaign states that "Whether you volunteer or are coerced onto the ID database, there's no way back. You'll be monitored for life. That's why the government is targeting students and young people".
Corporate Watch is also concerned about the role of the private sector, and the ever-expanding veil of commercial confidentiality. The Government states that the "market would provide" enrolment for the card, including the taking of biometric data. The full report 'Corporate Identity' can be downloaded from Corporation Watch.
The deadline for responding to this consultation is 30th June, and the full consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' can be downloaded from the Home Office website.
From November 2008, the UK Border Agency will be charged with issuing biometric ID cards (including fingerprints) to foreign nationals. This according to the Home consultation document will "protect the community against crime, illegal immigration, and terrorism".
However, a cursory scan of the internet reveals that crime, immigration and terrorism are still present in countries with ID cards. The ID card has always been a solution looking for a problem, and the consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' only serves to highlight this fact.
Desperately seeking a reason for ID cards, the Home Office have allowed nonsense such as this to be printed: "more frequently than before we have to prove who we are to people who do not know us: for example when we apply for jobs, use public services, travel abroad and open bank accounts".
But the fact is that mechanisms and forms of ID already exist for all these purposes – and this has not become more frequent in recent years. For decades now, people have worked, used public services, travelled abroad and even had a bank account without needing an ID card. Indeed, later in the consultation paper it states that ID cards will provide "the same level of proof as a passport for confirming your identity", so why are ID cards necessary?
Next in line, after foreign nationals, are airport workers who have been told they must pay £30 for an ID card from 2009 to work in the job they already do. The Unite union has stated that the workforce at airports already "undergoes lengthy and vigorous pre-employment checks", and therefore "see little additional benefit stemming from the introduction of identity cards".
The National Union of Students is also "extremely concerned" about the Government's proposals to issue young people with ID cards "on a voluntary basis" from 2010: "They say that the card will be 'voluntary', but those students who decide not to have an ID card will encounter difficulties when applying for student loans and bank accounts", and so in practice the card becomes compulsory. From 2011/12 the scheme "voluntarily" rolls out to the rest of the population.
The NO2ID campaign states that "Whether you volunteer or are coerced onto the ID database, there's no way back. You'll be monitored for life. That's why the government is targeting students and young people".
Corporate Watch is also concerned about the role of the private sector, and the ever-expanding veil of commercial confidentiality. The Government states that the "market would provide" enrolment for the card, including the taking of biometric data. The full report 'Corporate Identity' can be downloaded from Corporation Watch.
The deadline for responding to this consultation is 30th June, and the full consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' can be downloaded from the Home Office website.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Painting the town green
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is consulting on the proposals for the first wave of eco-towns, but already local campaigns against them have formed at virtually every proposed site. The DCLG states that construction at some sites will start as early as 2010. The sites in question are in Leeds, Rossington, Manby, Rushcliffe, Curborough, Pennbury, Coltishall, Middle Quinton, Marston, Henley Grange, Weston Otmoor, NE Elsenham, Bordon-Whitehill, Ford, and St Austell.
There are serious concerns with every alleged benefit of these new eco-towns: the environmental, housing, and democratic.
On the environmental case, many green groups that initially welcomed the proposals are now expressing concerns that far from being about the reclamation of brownfield sites adjacent to existing conurbations, almost all the short-listed schemes in the consultation paper are on greenfield sites. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) states that it "supports the idea of exemplary development that achieves high environmental standards", but that the majority of current proposals "appear to be in unsuitable, unsustainable locations". In a four-page dossier, CPRE assesses each of the proposed locations in turn.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) also states in its balanced document 'Sustainable solution or too good to be true' that "by being sited on top of a former wildlife haven or by causing lots of new road traffic", even the best eco-town "is unlikely to be a model of green development and living". FoE also rightly questions why the environmental criteria applied to eco-towns cannot be applied to all new housing and to existing settlements – in its document Home Truths.
Of the over 100,000 homes that could be built through these proposals, it seems that somewhere between none and very few will be council homes. Instead, the proposals refer to the nebulous concept of "affordable housing".
The role of councils in the whole eco-towns scheme is also limited. The detailed proposals are shrouded under "commercial confidentiality" as the new towns will be run by a management body, which will "co-ordinate delivery of services and manage facilities".
The Local Government Association has raised concerns that "locally agreed planning policies could be bypassed" and "councils would be unable to insist that services such as schools, shops, parks and public transport are integrated into the new settlements". In other words these new eco-towns could be corporately controlled towns, and national planning rules will override local democratic accountability in their design and construction.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCLG website, and the deadline for responses is 30th June.
There are serious concerns with every alleged benefit of these new eco-towns: the environmental, housing, and democratic.
On the environmental case, many green groups that initially welcomed the proposals are now expressing concerns that far from being about the reclamation of brownfield sites adjacent to existing conurbations, almost all the short-listed schemes in the consultation paper are on greenfield sites. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) states that it "supports the idea of exemplary development that achieves high environmental standards", but that the majority of current proposals "appear to be in unsuitable, unsustainable locations". In a four-page dossier, CPRE assesses each of the proposed locations in turn.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) also states in its balanced document 'Sustainable solution or too good to be true' that "by being sited on top of a former wildlife haven or by causing lots of new road traffic", even the best eco-town "is unlikely to be a model of green development and living". FoE also rightly questions why the environmental criteria applied to eco-towns cannot be applied to all new housing and to existing settlements – in its document Home Truths.
Of the over 100,000 homes that could be built through these proposals, it seems that somewhere between none and very few will be council homes. Instead, the proposals refer to the nebulous concept of "affordable housing".
The role of councils in the whole eco-towns scheme is also limited. The detailed proposals are shrouded under "commercial confidentiality" as the new towns will be run by a management body, which will "co-ordinate delivery of services and manage facilities".
The Local Government Association has raised concerns that "locally agreed planning policies could be bypassed" and "councils would be unable to insist that services such as schools, shops, parks and public transport are integrated into the new settlements". In other words these new eco-towns could be corporately controlled towns, and national planning rules will override local democratic accountability in their design and construction.
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCLG website, and the deadline for responses is 30th June.
Monday, 28 April 2008
Power to the People!
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is currently consulting on 'Participatory Budgeting: A draft national strategy – giving more people a say in local spending'.
The DCLG states that "participatory budgeting engages people in taking decisions on the spending priorities for a defined public budget in their local area. This means engaging residents and community groups to discuss spending priorities, make spending proposals, and vote on them, as well giving local people a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the process".
The proposals emerged from the DCLG's Community Empowerment Action Plan, which was published in November 2007, following ten participatory budgeting (PB) pilots – of which there is an independent assessment of these projects to download.
In the consultation document, the DCLG states that it wants PB schemes in every local authority area by 2012, involving the devolution of spending decisions on health and police budgets, as well as youth services. One idea in the draft strategy is for decisions to be devolved to ward area committees – but not all councils have these.
However, it is unclear exactly how much or which parts of the local government budget will be devolved to PB schemes. As people and participation.net notes "the amount of power devolved has tended to be larger in Latin America where participatory budgeting was developed compared to in Europe and North America". So consultation responses might want to think about which areas or what percentage of the council budget should be devolved.
The first participatory budgeting scheme developed in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in the late 1980s, under the now ruling Workers Party. In the UK, you can find out more about PB from the Participatory Budgeting UK website and from people and participation.net.
The campaigning organisation Involve has produced a useful briefing paper on participatory budgeting, which provides a good academic consideration of the issue.
PB has also been trialled with young people. The National Youth Agency (NYA) states that PB provides "opportunities for young people to develop an active citizenship role" and "to engage with, and feel ownership of their community". The NYA website has some useful information and research on PB as it applies to young people.
The consultation document 'Participatory Budgeting: A draft national strategy – giving more people a say in local spending' can be downloaded from the DCLG website and the deadline for responses is 10th June 2008.
The DCLG states that "participatory budgeting engages people in taking decisions on the spending priorities for a defined public budget in their local area. This means engaging residents and community groups to discuss spending priorities, make spending proposals, and vote on them, as well giving local people a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the process".
The proposals emerged from the DCLG's Community Empowerment Action Plan, which was published in November 2007, following ten participatory budgeting (PB) pilots – of which there is an independent assessment of these projects to download.
In the consultation document, the DCLG states that it wants PB schemes in every local authority area by 2012, involving the devolution of spending decisions on health and police budgets, as well as youth services. One idea in the draft strategy is for decisions to be devolved to ward area committees – but not all councils have these.
However, it is unclear exactly how much or which parts of the local government budget will be devolved to PB schemes. As people and participation.net notes "the amount of power devolved has tended to be larger in Latin America where participatory budgeting was developed compared to in Europe and North America". So consultation responses might want to think about which areas or what percentage of the council budget should be devolved.
The first participatory budgeting scheme developed in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre in the late 1980s, under the now ruling Workers Party. In the UK, you can find out more about PB from the Participatory Budgeting UK website and from people and participation.net.
The campaigning organisation Involve has produced a useful briefing paper on participatory budgeting, which provides a good academic consideration of the issue.
PB has also been trialled with young people. The National Youth Agency (NYA) states that PB provides "opportunities for young people to develop an active citizenship role" and "to engage with, and feel ownership of their community". The NYA website has some useful information and research on PB as it applies to young people.
The consultation document 'Participatory Budgeting: A draft national strategy – giving more people a say in local spending' can be downloaded from the DCLG website and the deadline for responses is 10th June 2008.
Monday, 14 April 2008
Getting railway accessibility on track
The Department for Transport (DfT) is consulting on a new code of practice for train and station design for disabled passengers. The consultation is being jointly held with Transport Scotland, the devolved Scottish transport authority.
The consultation covers train accessibility, infrastructure and facilities for disabled people, and service provision (e.g. staffing assistance). The effect of an inaccessible transport system on the lives of disabled people is examined in the 2003 Mind the Gap report by the Leonard Cheshire charity.
Mainline services on the UK rail network are already covered by EU guidance as part of the Trans-European Network, and this consultation is proposing to match the remainder to the European specification. The Government states that this will "make it easier for disabled people to know what type of facilities and infrastructure to expect as they travel by rail throughout Great Britain" and makes compliance by licensed operators to abide with. However the DfT has unhelpfully not made the EU guidance available on its website.
One immediate problem is the exemptions for the Heathrow Express and for London Underground. As MENCAP states, "it must be stressed that access is fairly poor on the Underground in general". Given the Victorian infrastructure of much of the LU network, there is perhaps a case for limited exemptions at some LU stations, but why the Heathrow Express?
Railway accessibility issues directly concern a large number of people: it is estimated that 800,000 people in the UK use a wheelchair; 2.5 million have learning difficulties; 157,000 are registered blind; and, according to RNID, around two million people in the UK use hearing aids. The RNIB website contains a good summary of how the 2005 Disability Discrimination Act applies to rail.
The rail union RMT has clear policy on expanding provision for disabled passengers, and highlights that for disabled passengers to be able to use the trains, "railway stations themselves must also be fully accessible. This requires the introduction of station facilities such as; level access to platforms, accessible toilets and booking office areas". The RMT has recently been campaigning against the closure of ticket offices and cuts in opening times and against driver-only operation of trains on the rail network.
Adequate staffing levels are cited as vital by a number of disability organisations. The Spinal Injuries Association states that "SIA would like to cite Paddington Station as an example of good practice has a reception area for people needing assistance to travel providing a warm, quiet area, with to accessible toilets away from the hustle-bustle of the main station concourse, where they are able to notify (and wait in comfort) the well trained and organised staff of their arrival at the station". As Age Concern notes: "many mainline stations and termini are accessible, but facilities and availability of staff vary widely". It therefore might be worth suggesting that minimum standards of station staffing and ticket office opening times are written into future franchise agreements.
The consultation document Consultation on revision of "Train and Station Standards for Disabled People: A Code of Practice" can be downloaded from the DfT website. Those based in Scotland are also asked "whether this code ought to apply in Scotland or whether Scottish ministers should exercise their right to prepare their own code". The deadline for responses is 23rd May 2008.
The consultation covers train accessibility, infrastructure and facilities for disabled people, and service provision (e.g. staffing assistance). The effect of an inaccessible transport system on the lives of disabled people is examined in the 2003 Mind the Gap report by the Leonard Cheshire charity.
Mainline services on the UK rail network are already covered by EU guidance as part of the Trans-European Network, and this consultation is proposing to match the remainder to the European specification. The Government states that this will "make it easier for disabled people to know what type of facilities and infrastructure to expect as they travel by rail throughout Great Britain" and makes compliance by licensed operators to abide with. However the DfT has unhelpfully not made the EU guidance available on its website.
One immediate problem is the exemptions for the Heathrow Express and for London Underground. As MENCAP states, "it must be stressed that access is fairly poor on the Underground in general". Given the Victorian infrastructure of much of the LU network, there is perhaps a case for limited exemptions at some LU stations, but why the Heathrow Express?
Railway accessibility issues directly concern a large number of people: it is estimated that 800,000 people in the UK use a wheelchair; 2.5 million have learning difficulties; 157,000 are registered blind; and, according to RNID, around two million people in the UK use hearing aids. The RNIB website contains a good summary of how the 2005 Disability Discrimination Act applies to rail.
The rail union RMT has clear policy on expanding provision for disabled passengers, and highlights that for disabled passengers to be able to use the trains, "railway stations themselves must also be fully accessible. This requires the introduction of station facilities such as; level access to platforms, accessible toilets and booking office areas". The RMT has recently been campaigning against the closure of ticket offices and cuts in opening times and against driver-only operation of trains on the rail network.
Adequate staffing levels are cited as vital by a number of disability organisations. The Spinal Injuries Association states that "SIA would like to cite Paddington Station as an example of good practice has a reception area for people needing assistance to travel providing a warm, quiet area, with to accessible toilets away from the hustle-bustle of the main station concourse, where they are able to notify (and wait in comfort) the well trained and organised staff of their arrival at the station". As Age Concern notes: "many mainline stations and termini are accessible, but facilities and availability of staff vary widely". It therefore might be worth suggesting that minimum standards of station staffing and ticket office opening times are written into future franchise agreements.
The consultation document Consultation on revision of "Train and Station Standards for Disabled People: A Code of Practice" can be downloaded from the DfT website. Those based in Scotland are also asked "whether this code ought to apply in Scotland or whether Scottish ministers should exercise their right to prepare their own code". The deadline for responses is 23rd May 2008.
Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Violent Extremism in Colleges?
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills are co-hosting a consultation on the 'Role of Further Education Providers (aka colleges to you and I) in promoting community cohesion, fostering shared values and preventing violent extremism'.
The shared values that the document states should be fostered are "values of openness, free debate and tolerance". In promoting cohesion around these values, the college should also "listen to and support mainstream voices". I wonder if there should be a consultation around what our "shared values" are, let alone whose constitutes a "mainstream voice"!
The consultation was welcomed by the National Union of Students (NUS), but it is "disappointed that the Government did not expand this consultation to address the problem of gun and knife crime".
Instead, the consultation highlights "al-Qa'ida influenced terrorism" as, according to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Bill Rammell MP, other forms of violent extremism "do not present the same scale of threat" - actually more young people have been killed by gun and knife crime than by "al-Qa'ida influenced terrorism". The NUS is also concerned that students are involved in any proposals, "to avoid unnecessary victimisation of Muslims".
The University and Colleges Union (UCU) picks up on this contradiction between promoting community cohesion and the relentless focus on Islamic extremism: "we still have some worries, however, that Muslim students and staff generally will feel themselves to be the focus of attention".
Writing in the Guardian, UCU General Secretary, Sally Hunt writes that "the FE guidance's six "scenarios and responses", intended to help colleges deal with potential dilemmas, include two Arab or Muslim-related scenarios. It would have been easy to add a possible scenario based on, say, extremist Christian fundamentalists". She concludes that "we will encourage and support all efforts to promote community cohesion, but let's be realistic too about the many other challenges the sector faces."
The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), which represents 90,000 Muslim students, states that "there is no evidence to suggest that Muslim students at university are particularly vulnerable to radicalisation nor is there any evidence to suggest that university campuses are hotbeds of extremist activity". Yet, the consultation document advises, some colleges may need to develop "preventing violent extremism plans".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCSF website, and the deadline for responses is 6th May 2008.
The shared values that the document states should be fostered are "values of openness, free debate and tolerance". In promoting cohesion around these values, the college should also "listen to and support mainstream voices". I wonder if there should be a consultation around what our "shared values" are, let alone whose constitutes a "mainstream voice"!
The consultation was welcomed by the National Union of Students (NUS), but it is "disappointed that the Government did not expand this consultation to address the problem of gun and knife crime".
Instead, the consultation highlights "al-Qa'ida influenced terrorism" as, according to the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Bill Rammell MP, other forms of violent extremism "do not present the same scale of threat" - actually more young people have been killed by gun and knife crime than by "al-Qa'ida influenced terrorism". The NUS is also concerned that students are involved in any proposals, "to avoid unnecessary victimisation of Muslims".
The University and Colleges Union (UCU) picks up on this contradiction between promoting community cohesion and the relentless focus on Islamic extremism: "we still have some worries, however, that Muslim students and staff generally will feel themselves to be the focus of attention".
Writing in the Guardian, UCU General Secretary, Sally Hunt writes that "the FE guidance's six "scenarios and responses", intended to help colleges deal with potential dilemmas, include two Arab or Muslim-related scenarios. It would have been easy to add a possible scenario based on, say, extremist Christian fundamentalists". She concludes that "we will encourage and support all efforts to promote community cohesion, but let's be realistic too about the many other challenges the sector faces."
The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), which represents 90,000 Muslim students, states that "there is no evidence to suggest that Muslim students at university are particularly vulnerable to radicalisation nor is there any evidence to suggest that university campuses are hotbeds of extremist activity". Yet, the consultation document advises, some colleges may need to develop "preventing violent extremism plans".
The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCSF website, and the deadline for responses is 6th May 2008.
Monday, 24 March 2008
What should we teach primary school children?
The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has commissioned an Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum – led by Sir Jim Rose. This is an 'out-sourced' consultation, asking respondents to submit evidence via the DCSF.
In announcing the consultation, Secretary of State Ed Balls said: "A strong, coherent primary curriculum is central to achieving the ambitions of the Children's Plan and delivering the outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda. It follows that our central purpose is to make the curriculum as good as it can be for all primary children, taking fully into account the importance of providing continuity with the early years foundation stage and the secondary stage curriculum". Respondents may therefore want to look at the aims edxpressed in those two documents.
A good source of information is the Cambridge University-based Primary Review, which recently found "a decrease in the overall quality of primary education experienced by pupils because of the narrowing of the curriculum and the intensity of test preparation". This was because of "a curriculum dominated by literacy and numeracy".
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) website also provides some useful perspectives: from a resolution passed by their 2000 conference which states that "Primary teachers are being forced to teach following a prescribed methodology regardless of their professional judgement, the circumstances of the school or the needs of pupils"; to the NUT response to the aforementioned Primary Review.
Similar themes of narrow curriculum and over-testing also emerge from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT). You can download the 20 page NAHT submission to the Primary Review, which states: "there needs to be continued rationalisation of, and flexibility within, the National Curriculum at primary level, and of the assessment process" and that "there is a good case for arguing that today's primary children, particularly towards the upper end of Key Stage 2, are placed under too much pressure to perform well, which can lead to concerns about their emotional well-being". It also looks at some of the inherent contradictions between a wider curriculum and testing: "primary schools . . . recognise the value to children's learning of music, drama, poetry and creative subjects, while the inspection system still focuses on standards in maths and English".
The leader of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) recently made headlines by stating that: "Our national curriculum should be far more focussed on the development of life skills and ways of working than whether or not we teach the Battle of Hastings . . . too much learning that goes on in primary and secondary school is rote learning and that's not learning for the 21st Century".
And so it appears that educational professionals feel there is not only enough space in the curriculum for creative subjects, but also for life skills too (aside from literacy and numeracy) and that testing causes this.
It's interesting that since devolution Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all abolished SATS for seven year olds. Should England follow suit?
Full details of the consultation can be downloaded from the DCSF website. The deadline for consultation responses is 30th April 2008.
In announcing the consultation, Secretary of State Ed Balls said: "A strong, coherent primary curriculum is central to achieving the ambitions of the Children's Plan and delivering the outcomes of the Every Child Matters agenda. It follows that our central purpose is to make the curriculum as good as it can be for all primary children, taking fully into account the importance of providing continuity with the early years foundation stage and the secondary stage curriculum". Respondents may therefore want to look at the aims edxpressed in those two documents.
A good source of information is the Cambridge University-based Primary Review, which recently found "a decrease in the overall quality of primary education experienced by pupils because of the narrowing of the curriculum and the intensity of test preparation". This was because of "a curriculum dominated by literacy and numeracy".
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) website also provides some useful perspectives: from a resolution passed by their 2000 conference which states that "Primary teachers are being forced to teach following a prescribed methodology regardless of their professional judgement, the circumstances of the school or the needs of pupils"; to the NUT response to the aforementioned Primary Review.
Similar themes of narrow curriculum and over-testing also emerge from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT). You can download the 20 page NAHT submission to the Primary Review, which states: "there needs to be continued rationalisation of, and flexibility within, the National Curriculum at primary level, and of the assessment process" and that "there is a good case for arguing that today's primary children, particularly towards the upper end of Key Stage 2, are placed under too much pressure to perform well, which can lead to concerns about their emotional well-being". It also looks at some of the inherent contradictions between a wider curriculum and testing: "primary schools . . . recognise the value to children's learning of music, drama, poetry and creative subjects, while the inspection system still focuses on standards in maths and English".
The leader of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) recently made headlines by stating that: "Our national curriculum should be far more focussed on the development of life skills and ways of working than whether or not we teach the Battle of Hastings . . . too much learning that goes on in primary and secondary school is rote learning and that's not learning for the 21st Century".
And so it appears that educational professionals feel there is not only enough space in the curriculum for creative subjects, but also for life skills too (aside from literacy and numeracy) and that testing causes this.
It's interesting that since devolution Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all abolished SATS for seven year olds. Should England follow suit?
Full details of the consultation can be downloaded from the DCSF website. The deadline for consultation responses is 30th April 2008.
Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Aviation's duty to climate change
In the 2007 Budget, the Government announced a consultation on replacing Air Passenger with Aviation Duty. The Treasury document Aviation duty: a consultation sets out the options for implementing Aviation Duty.
The consultation looks at how the duty can be switched from passengers to planes. In early March, the story of an American Airlines flight which flew from Chicago to London with just five passengers illustrated the case for taxing planes over passengers – and caused outrage in the press.
It is proposed that Aviation Duty will be based on flight distance and the 'Maximum Take-Off Weight' of the plane as the most effective measure. The consultation essentially asks for responses on the detail of implementation - though, as ever, there is scope for more general responses.
The move to Aviation Duty is welcomed by Friends of the Earth, which states it "could be a major step in the right direction".
The Campaign for Better Transport has also welcomed the transfer to Aviation Duty, stating, "the aviation industry currently pays no fuel tax or VAT so it's right they contribute something to the economy. But we need to see investment in sustainable alternatives to short-distance air travel, such as rail links". Perhaps respondents to the consultation should ask for revenue from Aviation Duty to be ringfenced for such schemes.
Such ringfencing would surely be supported by the RMT (the rail, maritime and transport workers' union) which makes the environmental case for shifting freight transport from air to rail and inland waterway in its recent submission to the Transport Select Committee. The RMT and environmental campaigners will be pleased to know that Aviation Duty, unlike Air Passenger Duty is also proposed to apply to freight as well as passenger flights.
For a good background on the environmental case for reducing air travel see AirportWatch or Greenpeace. However, the consultation document states that "the Government remains committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the aviation industry", yet also admits that while currently accounting for 6.3% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, aviation is projected to increase to 21% by 2050. So much for joined-up government!
The deadline for responses to the consultation on Aviation Duty closes on 24th April 2008 – and it's proposed that Aviation Duty will replace Air Passenger Duty from 1st November 2009.
The consultation looks at how the duty can be switched from passengers to planes. In early March, the story of an American Airlines flight which flew from Chicago to London with just five passengers illustrated the case for taxing planes over passengers – and caused outrage in the press.
It is proposed that Aviation Duty will be based on flight distance and the 'Maximum Take-Off Weight' of the plane as the most effective measure. The consultation essentially asks for responses on the detail of implementation - though, as ever, there is scope for more general responses.
The move to Aviation Duty is welcomed by Friends of the Earth, which states it "could be a major step in the right direction".
The Campaign for Better Transport has also welcomed the transfer to Aviation Duty, stating, "the aviation industry currently pays no fuel tax or VAT so it's right they contribute something to the economy. But we need to see investment in sustainable alternatives to short-distance air travel, such as rail links". Perhaps respondents to the consultation should ask for revenue from Aviation Duty to be ringfenced for such schemes.
Such ringfencing would surely be supported by the RMT (the rail, maritime and transport workers' union) which makes the environmental case for shifting freight transport from air to rail and inland waterway in its recent submission to the Transport Select Committee. The RMT and environmental campaigners will be pleased to know that Aviation Duty, unlike Air Passenger Duty is also proposed to apply to freight as well as passenger flights.
For a good background on the environmental case for reducing air travel see AirportWatch or Greenpeace. However, the consultation document states that "the Government remains committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the aviation industry", yet also admits that while currently accounting for 6.3% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, aviation is projected to increase to 21% by 2050. So much for joined-up government!
The deadline for responses to the consultation on Aviation Duty closes on 24th April 2008 – and it's proposed that Aviation Duty will replace Air Passenger Duty from 1st November 2009.
Saturday, 8 March 2008
On the Buses
You wait for a consultation on buses, and then two come along at once! The Department for Transport has a consultation on 'Options for strengthening bus passenger representation' for which the deadline is Monday 17th March – if you hurry you might just catch it!
The consultation seeks views on how to "provide a more high profile, recognised point to which passengers could address their concerns about punctuality and reliability of their local bus services".
So anyone who catches a bus regularly should be interested – especially if you have a disability.
The Campaign for Better Transport is looking forward to a watchdog for bus passengers, and has a template response for those replying to the consultation.
The other consultation is on Bus construction regulations – which may sound as if it is only of interest to bus manufacturers, but is actually about the regulation and safety standards of buses. It should therefore be of interest to road safety campaigners, bus drivers and the unions that represent them, and other road users. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Thursday 20th March.
The consultation seeks views on how to "provide a more high profile, recognised point to which passengers could address their concerns about punctuality and reliability of their local bus services".
So anyone who catches a bus regularly should be interested – especially if you have a disability.
The Campaign for Better Transport is looking forward to a watchdog for bus passengers, and has a template response for those replying to the consultation.
The other consultation is on Bus construction regulations – which may sound as if it is only of interest to bus manufacturers, but is actually about the regulation and safety standards of buses. It should therefore be of interest to road safety campaigners, bus drivers and the unions that represent them, and other road users. The deadline for responses to this consultation is Thursday 20th March.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
Direct democracy or petition sham?
As part of the Governance of Britain green paper, the Department for Communities and Local Government is now consulting on Local petitions and Calls for Action.
Since November 2006 members of the public have been able to start or sign online petitions at the 10 Downing Street website, which can run for up to 12 months and receive a Government response if signed by 200 or more people.
The Governance of Britain green paper committed the Government to considering means of petitioning Parliament and devising a mechanism which could lead to a debate in the House of Commons – but strangely this is not included within this consultation, with no explanation of why not or whether it will be in the future. To find out you may want to email Hazel Blears (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
Instead, another issue, not even mentioned in the green paper is being consulted upon: petitions to local government.
The consultation document proposes that local authorities would have a duty to respond to petitions in much the same way as the 10 Downing Street system, if they relate to an issue in local government jurisdiction; are organised by a local person; and have a sufficient level of support.
However, as the consultation document admits, "many local authorities already deal with petitions systematically, scrupulously and fairly" – so it is not clear what difference this proposal would make – except for the minority of councils who perhaps do not respond formally to petitions (no examples are cited in the consultation document).
However, the document does mention examples of countries where petitions are a "trigger leading to electoral action, typically in the form of a referendum". One such example of this is Switzerland whereby any change to Swiss law can be subjected to a referendum if 50,000 people sign a petition opposing it within 100 days. Additionally, a referendum on a constitutional change can be initiated by 100,000 people signing a petition within 18 months.
Campaigning organisations such as charities, trade unions and other NGOs may therefore wish to reply to this consultation suggesting the Swiss model.
The deadline for responses is 20th March 2008.
Since November 2006 members of the public have been able to start or sign online petitions at the 10 Downing Street website, which can run for up to 12 months and receive a Government response if signed by 200 or more people.
The Governance of Britain green paper committed the Government to considering means of petitioning Parliament and devising a mechanism which could lead to a debate in the House of Commons – but strangely this is not included within this consultation, with no explanation of why not or whether it will be in the future. To find out you may want to email Hazel Blears (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)
Instead, another issue, not even mentioned in the green paper is being consulted upon: petitions to local government.
The consultation document proposes that local authorities would have a duty to respond to petitions in much the same way as the 10 Downing Street system, if they relate to an issue in local government jurisdiction; are organised by a local person; and have a sufficient level of support.
However, as the consultation document admits, "many local authorities already deal with petitions systematically, scrupulously and fairly" – so it is not clear what difference this proposal would make – except for the minority of councils who perhaps do not respond formally to petitions (no examples are cited in the consultation document).
However, the document does mention examples of countries where petitions are a "trigger leading to electoral action, typically in the form of a referendum". One such example of this is Switzerland whereby any change to Swiss law can be subjected to a referendum if 50,000 people sign a petition opposing it within 100 days. Additionally, a referendum on a constitutional change can be initiated by 100,000 people signing a petition within 18 months.
Campaigning organisations such as charities, trade unions and other NGOs may therefore wish to reply to this consultation suggesting the Swiss model.
The deadline for responses is 20th March 2008.
Helping the disabled back into work?
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is currently consulting on 'Improving specialist disability employment services'. According to the consultation document, "the overall employment rate for disabled people has improved significantly over the past decade – from just 38% in 1998 to around 47% today".
As the Shaw Trust highlights "only about half of disabled people of working age are in work, compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age". Their website also contains comparative employment statistics by disability.
The consultation looks at the nature of provision that the DWP offers to disabled people seeking work, and asks how this provision can be improved. But both the Citizens Advice Bureau and the PCS union (representing staff who work in Jobcentre Plus) question whether improvements can be made at a time when the DWP is cutting a further 12,000 staff – having cut 30,000 over the past three years.
Improving this specialist provision to these services is part of the DWP's proposed reforms of Incapacity Benefit, which aims to remove one million people from Incapacity Benefit. These proposals have been criticised by unions, and disability charities.
The consultation document Improving specialist disability employment services can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is Monday 10th March 2008.
As the Shaw Trust highlights "only about half of disabled people of working age are in work, compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age". Their website also contains comparative employment statistics by disability.
The consultation looks at the nature of provision that the DWP offers to disabled people seeking work, and asks how this provision can be improved. But both the Citizens Advice Bureau and the PCS union (representing staff who work in Jobcentre Plus) question whether improvements can be made at a time when the DWP is cutting a further 12,000 staff – having cut 30,000 over the past three years.
Improving this specialist provision to these services is part of the DWP's proposed reforms of Incapacity Benefit, which aims to remove one million people from Incapacity Benefit. These proposals have been criticised by unions, and disability charities.
The consultation document Improving specialist disability employment services can be downloaded from the DWP website. The deadline for responses is Monday 10th March 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)