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.
Monday, 28 April 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)