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.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)