BARKING MAD!

We’ve made great strides in tackling anti-social behaviour over the last 15 years. However, this government is in real danger of both making a mess of the anti-social behaviour legislation and of missing some real opportunities to sort out some powers which are necessary to take action when people and communities are afraid.

The latest example of this is that the coalition government is planning to water down the powers to control dangerous dogs, despite a growing number of attacks. The government is planning to axe dog control orders in England and replace them with a general "public spaces protection order" which covers everything from crack houses to littering in parks.

An all-party committee of MPs has criticised the move, warning that merging dog control with other anti-social behaviour powers will make the menace of aggressive behaviour by dogs less of a priority for councils and police. An estimated 210,000 dog attacks on people occur every year, and, in 2011-12, 6,450 victims ended up in hospital.

The current dog control orders cover all breeds, not just the four specified breeds under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Owners face £1,000 fines if they fail to keep dogs on leads in specified public places or have six or more dogs per individual. In Scotland and Wales, there are new dog control notices that can be used to order that specific animals are muzzled, but Ministers are refusing to consider such orders in England.

The Dangerous Dogs Act covers only a narrow list of fighting breeds, including pit bull terriers, and does not address the problem of other breeds of dogs attacking in packs. Dog welfare charities say the government’s proposals don’t effectively tackle irresponsible dog ownership and are likely to make the problems worse.

We need tougher laws to tackle dangerous dogs, and councils and the police need powers to deal with aggressive behaviour before it turns into a vicious attack. There is huge public support for strong powers to tackle the issue. It’s difficult to understand why the coalition government Government is not responding to it.

Beware of the Leopard

It appears that this government prefers that we should conduct our relations in the world of science fiction.

Of course, that helps if you prefer policy development by assertion rather than being troubled by facts or evidence.

It was bad enough that Eric Pickles reminded me of a Sontaran.*

Now we have Eric’s Local Government Minister, Brandon Lewis, resorting to quoting the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy in support of his decision to continue to require that councils should still be forced to publish details of planning applications and highways notices in local newspapers. **

Now, let me be clear that, in my view, the last government was completely wrong in deciding not to remove the statutory requirements to publish notices in newspapers. The reality is that councils are being forced to waste around £40m of taxpayers’ money each year to subsidise local newspapers.

In nearly 40 years of local and parliamentary representation, I can't remember having met a single person who has discovered a planning or highway proposal from the statutory notice. Has anybody else?

Actually, the position has got worse since the 2009 review. Local newspaper print sales have continued to drop – even in the big cities, readership is now less than 20% of the population. The same newspapers claim that their business case is now based on web access, supported by on-line advertising. Just as the national newspapers are rushing to put their web access behind a pay-wall, it will not be long before the local and regional print media follow suit. Yet, which local newspaper actually puts on-line the very statutory notices that councils have been forced to pay them a fortune to publish?

However, Brandon Lewis does well to link the Hitchhikers’ Guide to the government’s planning policies. It’s just that he quoted the wrong extract. Planning Minister Nick Boles is well cast as the local planning officer in the exchange with Arthur Dent, when his house is about to be demolished:

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months." 

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything." 

"But the plans were on display ..." 

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." 

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone." 

"So had the stairs." 

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?" 

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

I rather suspect that in the coming months, there will be many people - following Arthur Dent’s example - throwing themselves to the ground in front of the bulldozers which Nick Boles has unleashed.

The government’s National Planning Policy Framework is just a year old. In its draft form, the All-Party Communities and Local Government Committee unanimously gave the NPPF a real mauling. We were quite clear that the policy, as drafted, the default ‘yes’ to development was likely to result in unsustainable development and that the absence of a specific reference to ‘brownfield first’ and ‘town centre first’ would inevitably result in ‘greenfield first’ and ‘out-of-town first’.

We were pleased when the then Planning Minister told us all that 30 of the 35 changes recommended by the CLG Committee had been adopted. Most commentators welcomed the outcome, although a few sceptics – CPRE, National Trust, Daily Mail – remained cautious at best.

They’ve now proved to have been correct. Planning and housing changes announced in the budget have apparently led Nick Boles to privately promise property developers that planning laws will be liberalised again within weeks to allow them to begin a house-building boom, and then tell house-building executives that he wanted to make it easier for property owners 'to do some things without having to ask for permission'.

The planning minister has admitted that new developments are “quite likely to be ugly” and will put pressure on the local infrastructure with few obvious benefits to local communities, and that planning rules limiting construction on greenfield sites will be relaxed.

At local level, the fact that developers are simply asserting that brownfield sites are ‘not viable’ is already forcing councils to bring forward more greenfield development sites just to meet their statutory obligations as brownfield sites lie empty. We might well ask what is happening to the sites already with permission to build 400,000 homes.

Last week, Eric Pickles told the Daily Telegraph “Trust me: I won't let the bulldozers wreck Middle England.” Is this more science fiction?

I’m reminded that, along with ‘the cheque is in the post’, the other claim you should never trust is “I’m from the planning department and I’m here to help you.”

Or, after another round of council cuts, should this be "I used to be from the planning department and  I used to be able to help you"?

Beware of the Leopard!

*

www.lgcplus.com/briefings/desperately-seeking-straight-answers/5053216.article

**

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130326/text/130326w0003.htm#13032680000141

Safe in his hands?

Before the election, David Cameron promised there would be no more top-down re-organisations of the NHS.

But, once inside Downing Street, David Cameron brought forward the biggest top-down re-organisation in NHS history. This is at a time of huge financial pressure - exposing the NHS to greater levels of risk.

David Cameron said he wanted to put NHS staff in control, but refused to listen to their concerns: less than one-in-ten NHS staff wanted to see his Bill passed, with the vast majority wanting to see it withdrawn, yet he ploughed on regardless. Both NHS staff and patients are concerned about the dangers the NHS faces as a result.

Despite assurances given by Ministers during the passage of the Bill, the re-organisation:

• fails to put doctors in control. Instead, it adds bureaucracy and empowers lawyers and accountants, rather than doctors;
• has taken over £3 billion away from patient care;
• brings in hundreds of new private companies through Any Qualified Provider tendering and new competition rules;
• fails to give the NHS the real service reform needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and
• risks discouraging integration and collaboration.

The Government’s reorganisation was clearly not ready to have gone live on 1st April. Too many of the organisations due to take control hadn’t been fully authorized. Confusion remains over who will be in charge, how the competition rules trapped in Parliament will operate and how potential conflict of interests will be handled.

Bizarrely,last month, the Department of Health handed £2.2 billion of NHS funds to the Treasury, rather than investing it in frontline care. This is hard to understand as the NHS struggles to cope with the re-organisation, plummeting nurse numbers and rising waiting-times for in-patient treatment.

And, contrary to all the government’s assertions that it is cutting quangos, this month it launched a brand new £60bn health quango, completely dwarfing the budgets of all the other quangos put together!

April 1st – no joke!

This week has seen a raft of changes that, taken together, represent the the biggest contraction in the welfare state since its foundations in the 1940s.

Millions of families – the majority being working households on low incomes – are seeing significant real reductions in their incomes. This government is committed to further real cuts in income for years to come. Bankers get bonuses, ordinary working families get battered.

The speed with which the government is moving to introduce Universal Credit is bringing considerable risks. The government had promised that the scheme was to be piloted in four areas starting this month. Now it has suddenly announced that three of those areas won’t start until July. It’s difficult to see how any lessons can be learned for a scheme to be implemented in October.

There is a very real risk that the new computer systems and software for Universal Credit will simply not be fit for purpose and, at best, there will be insufficient time to sort out any glitches. Further, the transition to Universal Credit almost certainly leaves the system more vulnerable to fraud.

Direct payment of rent to tenants rather than to landlords is almost certain to increase rent arrears, as families under financial pressure will find it difficult to resist the temptation to use their rent cash as an alternative to a pay-day loan. I don’t know of any council – of any political persuasion – or housing association which hasn’t increased its provision for rent arrears.

It is also inevitable that there will be huge confusion from the separation of housing and council tax benefits. I think people massively under-estimate the number of households and families who come in to and out of eligibility for various benefits during the course of any year. This is only going to increase as the number of temporary and short-term jobs increases.

It’s difficult to believe other than that there will be a very big rise this Autumn in the number of families who will be contacting MPs, Councillors and advice bureaux wanting urgent assistance with their benefit problems.

No, April 1^st is no joke this year.

Childcare support?

The Government has announced proposals for a Tax-free Childcare scheme worth up to £1,200 per child. They say this will save a working family with two children under 12 up to £2,400 a year.

It will be phased in from autumn 2015, partly funded by the phasing out of childcare vouchers. and will ultimately be open to around 2.5 million families with children under 12. From the first year of operation, all children under 5 will be eligible, initially opening the scheme to 1.3 million families, and the scheme will build up over time to include children under 12.

To be eligible, families will have all parents in work, with each earning less than £150,000 a year, and will not already receive support through tax credits and later, Universal Credit. They will receive 20% – equivalent to the basic rate of tax – of their yearly childcare costs up to £6,000 per child.

It sounds like good news, so what’s the problem?

Well, first, you might ask is why this scheme is more than two years away. If it’s so important, why isn’t it being done now?

Secondly, while the Government is promising £750 million of support in 2015, it will also be cutting 10 times as much - £7 billion worth of support for families in 2015.

Thirdly, this scheme will not make up for families who have lost up to £1,500 in childcare support through cuts to tax credits. In total, this Government will have made £15 billion worth of cuts to family and childcare support between 2010 and 2015. This announcement won’t affect any of those cuts before 2015.

Finally, it will come as no surprise that at the same time as this government is giving massive tax cuts to millionaires, it is now introducing childcare support for families earning £300,000 a year at the same time as it is cutting Surestart schemes all over the country. It’s good to know we’re all in it together!

Encouraging small businesses to grow – or not!

Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) are key innovators and vital for economic growth. 

The Government is the UK’s biggest single consumer – the biggest purchaser of goods and services - but it is failing to ensure that public procurement is being used effectively to support SMEs across the country.

In February 2011, David Cameron and Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude outlined Government procurement reforms. They both pledged to ensure that “25% of all government contracts are awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises”.  Of course, this promise got good headlines and supportive editorials in the media. However, like various other pledges, the Government has since dropped this as a target, and downgraded it to an “aspiration”. Not surprisingly, there has been little media comment about this.

At the beginning of March, the Cabinet Office published full year figures for procurement spend with SMEs across central government departments.  The figures show that the percentage of procurement spend with SMEs has actually decreased in the majority of government departments.

SMEs are very dependent upon good cash-flow. In 2011, the Government promised to pay all SME invoices within ten days, and that subcontractors would get paid at least within 30 days, and that it would "name and shame" large suppliers who fail to pay SMEs on time. 

But the latest Forum of Private Business research shows that 18 per cent of small businesses are still being paid late by the public sector.  And the survey found that nine per cent more members are reporting late payments from the government departments and agencies compared to 2009. Even worse, despite government promises of a concentrated effort to improve payment performance by major contractors, the latest  figures show the opposite.  The big outsourcers are getting worse, putting small companies that they subcontract the work to under enormous financial pressure.

So, despite all the rhetoric, the reality is that this government’s failure to procure from, and its late payment to, SMEs is threatening the survival of many small business and the country’s economic performance as a whole.

Are you female, born 1952-53? Read this!

The government is making huge changes to pensions, financial support for those working in low-paid jobs and with disabilities, and benefits for those out of work.

For the last year, I have been warning about the real impact of some of the cuts that are being implemented this year. It has been very difficult to get media attention – and, often, public attention – for these issues. The result is that the government has ploughed on regardless, until the very last minute.

A good example of this has been the ‘bedroom tax’. Last week, we saw last minute changes to try to exclude foster parents, service personnel and some families with disabled children from the scheme. None of these concerns was new. Some of us had been raising them for some time. There will be some horror stories yet to come from the other concerns that the government has failed to address.

So let me use this opportunity to flag up another issue, so that the government will have no excuse that it wasn’t warned.

The Government's latest proposal for a single tier pension will mean that about 430,000 women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953, will not qualify for the new pension but men of the same age will. That’s about 700 women in every parliamentary constituency. Those women will draw a state pension income of around £1,900 a year (£36.55 a week) less than a man of the same age and, even if they do receive their pension earlier, they are still likely to be worse off

Government Ministers claim that those women will be better off simply because they are allowed to retire earlier. It’s disingenuous. If these women are retired for 20 years they would lose considerably more than the pension received for the earlier retirement.

Don’t say you haven’t been warned. Make your views known now.

National Apprenticeship Week

Apprenticeships and other forms of vocational education traditionally offered a very clear path to a successful career for thousands of young people.

Apprenticeships are of enormous benefit, not only for each apprentice but also for the businesses training them. They can fill a skills gap and allow businesses the opportunity to match their future workforce around their specific needs. For apprentices there is the opportunity to learn on the job, build up knowledge and skills, gain qualifications and earn money all at the same time. They also gain excellent prospects for the future because they will have the knowledge and experience that employers really value and have been able to demonstrate a commitment to continuous learning and development.

Perhaps what has always been under-valued about apprenticeships is the part they played in the transition from childhood to adulthood, where supervisors and new workmates helped to keep them on the straight and narrow in their personal development as much as in their skills’ development.

Apprenticeship numbers fell dramatically during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The problem was exacerbated when the then Conservative government legislated to prevent councils from including minimum apprenticeship training requirements in their tenders for, for example, construction and highways’ schemes. The mantra was ‘The market will provide’. It didn’t.

Apprenticeship training collapsed. Many good local and regional construction companies were forced to cut their apprentice-training in the light of fierce competition from companies which didn’t invest in training. Unsurprisingly, this led to a shortage of electricians, plumbers, joiners, paviors and bricklayers. So, when the economy picked up, many private companies started importing skilled labour from abroad.

In 1997, there were just 65,000 apprenticeship starts in England. Between 1997 and 2010, the Labour governments invested more than £8 billion in apprenticeship training. In 2009/10, more than 273,000 young people started apprenticeship training – more than four times as many as 1997.

The 2009 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act was the first complete overhaul of apprenticeships’ legislation for more than 200 years. It established the entitlement to an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified young person who wanted one. But, the coalition government has re-labeled all sorts of in-work short training courses as apprenticeships. They aren’t the apprenticeship schemes we need now and for the future.

Now, we have almost one million young people are now unemployed and the number out of work for more than 12 months has doubled in the last year. This is National Apprenticeship Week. The government could make a really positive step by announcing that all companies bidding for public contracts valued over £1m are required to demonstrate their commitment to apprentice training.

I’m pleased Sheffield City Council is one of a number of councils which are developing its procurement strategy to boost apprenticeship opportunities.

Making room

“We shouldn’t be financially supporting people to have bigger homes than they need.”

“If those living in homes with more rooms than they need moved somewhere smaller, then families who are over-crowded could be re-housed.”

Those statements seem entirely reasonable don’t they? In fact, many councils and housing associations have very good schemes to help tenants, in homes that are now larger than they need, to move somewhere smaller. But those schemes are very different from the Bedroom Tax that the government is now implementing.

In fact, the nature of the Bedroom Tax really tells us everything about the real values of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. 660,000 households are going to be hit. On average, they will lose £728 a year – about £14 a week. More than 10,000 families in Sheffield will be affected, and about 1250 in NE Derbyshire will lose out. In total, that will mean about an £8 million cut in money being spent locally.

The government says it’s targeting the skivers but the reality is very, very different. The Bedroom Tax unfair policy will mainly hit working households and some of the most vulnerable families.

Two thirds of the households hit are home to someone with a disability. Families of young soldiers serving our country will be penalised for keeping a bedroom where their son or daughter can stay when on leave. Bizarrely, if the bedroom is being kept for a son or daughter who’s been sent to prison, then you don’t get penalized. Foster families, who need a bedroom to respond urgently to provide a safe home for a child in danger are also going to be hit. As will thousands of ordinary working households of grandparents who have a bedroom in which their grandchildren can stay.

We can talk as much as we like about the general terms and the statistics. It’s when you see the real impact on real families that you know it’s going to hurt and damage.

And when, at the same time, 13,000 millionaires are getting a tax cut worth an average £100,000 a year, you know just how unfair it is.

Another myth bites the dust

Throughout history, at times of serious economic instability, we have seen how the politics of divide and rule have risen to prominence, often fueled by sections of the media. In this economic crisis, a whole range of scapegoats have been presented as the cause of our problems. Of course, issues which fit the currently dominant political ideology are likely to be promoted and repeated – never let the facts get in the way of the story you want to tell.

The Conservative-led coalition government has a very strong ideological view – put simply, ‘private-sector good; public-sector bad’. It not only wants to minimise the state – reflecting Margaret Thatcher’s ‘there’s no such thing as society’ – but it also wants, as far as possible, to privatise those things which it believes the state will have to do. People are only just beginning to realize how every part of our National Health Service is intended to be privatized.

Since the start of this economic crisis, government ministers – supported by various ideological friends and parts of the media – have been persistently promoting the view that there is a ‘public sector pay premium’. In other words, they have consistently alleged that public sector workers receive better pay and conditions than their counterparts in the private sector. For example, a big headline in the Daily Telegraph claimed that ‘public sector workers were ‘more than 40 per cent better off’ than employees in the private sector’.

Last week, a major study - ‘Public Sector Pay Premium’ – Fact or Fiction? by Income Data Services – simply blew apart the analysis on which these headlines and stories had been based.

Basically, the report said that ‘the substantial differences in income levels and occupational characteristics mean that average pay in any one sector will reflect all the complexity of skill mix, qualification, experience, responsibility, gender and seniority in each sector. This makes it even harder to draw simple comparisons.’ In other words, you shouldn’t compare apples and pears.

Further, IDS and other organisations consistently found that rather than there being a public sector ‘pay premium’, pay and conditions in the public sector are below those in the private sector for comparable roles.

Another myth bites the dust.