Sham 'Consultation' on Sunday Trading

What was the point? The government has (thankfully) shelved plans to liberalise Sunday trading after the SNP made it clear they'd vote against. A shared day of rest is likely to be one of the first casualties of EVEL, but for now workers, families, charities and communities get a reprieve.

What's obvious is that the so-called consultation held by the government on its plans to reform the law was a complete waste of space.

The prime minister's official spokeswoman said the next steps would await analysis of the results of a consultation and be made clear "in due course"

So the initial plans, which have been 'parked', were going to happen before the consultation results were in and analysed. The consultation is a pointless exercise, because the government hasn't even bothered to listen to it, it's only the 20 or so Conservative MPs who made it clear they'd vote against that's forced the U-turn.

Either have participative democracy, or be honest that you're railroading things through no matter what people think or what you promised before the election, and save everyone a bit of time and money. Today it's the sheer dishonesty of the process that annoys me. 

What's Wrong With This Picture?

"We are analysing your feedback". So says the government consultation page on Sunday Trading law reform today. The consultation ran for 6 weeks up to September, and here's what I sent in as my feedback.

Analysing my feedback? No you're not. David Cameron still wants to do what he promised not to, to make Sunday another shopping day just like any other. This seems to be yet another calculated lie by the government. Seriously Dave, you never intended to take any notice of this 'consultation' did you? If the government were still analysing the feedback, they wouldn't have planned to vote through the homogenisation of Sundays next week, thankfully now withdrawn due to pressure from Conservative MPs.

At PMQ's yesterday, Cameron had the chance to back existing Sunday trading laws, instead he said 'there is a strong case for change', and said that his plan hadn't changed, the government was still going to give local authorities the chance to scrap Sunday trading restrictions. 'Choice' and 'modernisation' won't apply to the people who have to work on Sundays, and as for Camerons claim that liberalisation creates jobs, the evidence actually points the other way.

Maybe there's a donor trail that has something to do with all this. There certainly isn't an evidence trail.

Faith in the Workplace - Equality and Human Rights Commission Survey

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has an open consulation on religion and belief in the workplace:

Has your religion or belief, or that of other people, affected your experiences in the workplace or the services you receive as part of your daily life? Or perhaps they impact on you as an employer or manager?  If so, we want to hear from you, whether your experiences are good or bad.

We want to gather as much information as we can from employees, service users, employers, service providers, trade unions, legal advisors and religion or belief groups so that we can assess how a person’s religion or belief, or lack of it, is taken into account at work and when using services.

This major call for evidence is part of our three year programme to strengthen understanding of religion or belief in public life, to improve knowledge of what happens in practice and to make sure that the laws which are in place to protect everyone’s right to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect are effective.

It runs until 31st October, and the evidence given will shape how the EHRC addresses issue of faith and human rights in the future, and assessment of how the current human rights framework works. (Not sure if that includes recent Conservative policy announcements!) The consultation includes questions about whether more or less legal protection should be given to people who hold religious beliefs. That could be a bit of a blunt instrument: I'd be keener to see more power for Christians to opt out of Sunday working in non-essential services than for Muslim nurses to wear a burka at work.

The consultation relates both to employees, and people receiving services. This is an opportunity to inform the way faith is taken into account in the public sphere and policy making, so please consider taking part.

Faith, Fairness, and the Workplace - Government Survey

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is doing a survey on people's experience of faith in the workplace, and in using public services:

We want to gather as much information as we can from employees, service users, employers, service providers, trade unions, legal advisors and religion or belief groups so that we can assess how a person’s religion or belief, or lack of it, is taken into account at work and when using services.

This major call for evidence is part of our three year programme to strengthen understanding of religion or belief in public life, to improve knowledge of what happens in practice and to make sure that the laws which are in place to protect everyone’s right to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect are effective.

You can do the survey here. 

I'm aware of several people who have ended up working more Sundays then they bargained for when they first agreed to do the occasional Sunday. And there was this case earlier this week, a registrar whose council could have done more to accomodate her but instead got the sack. So it's all very relevant.

Press release from the Evangelical Alliance on the survey here, which references some other research done on faith in the workplace/public life, and where the 'rights' of Christian belief fit into the map of other perceived rights. 

The mental health 'car crash': a little more conversation, a lot more action.

The outgoing head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists is deeply unhappy with the way the Coalition government have handled mental health.

"It's a car crash," said Prof Bailey.

"The system is in crisis and we need people to listen.

"The sums of money that could make a difference are not huge but they could make a large difference."

Prof Bailey, who steps down as president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists later this week following three years in the role, strongly attacked the health secretary for failing to engage.

Asked whether Mr Hunt takes mental health seriously, she replied, "He has a basic understanding of it but whether he takes it seriously, the proof of which would be making it a priority, then sadly not."

There is the standard dead bat response from the government (that's a cricketing term, rather than anything to do with deceased flying mammals). It's even more frustrating to have a government that promised plenty on mental health but failed to deliver, than one which said nothing in the first place. Demand is rising, but provision is falling. If you thought the 4 hour wait in A&E for your broken leg was bad, you should be grateful it's your body that's broken and not your mind. We need both a little more conversation (there is still a great stigma over mental illness) and a lot more action.

It's very hard for people who are 'in the system' to speak out about it. For many with depression, anxiety etc., simply getting through the day is enough of a challenge, let alone having the confidence to challenge the system if it's letting you down. A few years ago, if you wanted my vote, a concrete promise of cash and provision in this area would have swung it. But until we get a health minister who has either been a patient or a carer for someone with acute mental health problems, I'm going to take the promises with a large pinch of salt. 

The recession has triggered a further rise in the number of people on anti-depressants. It's not hard to see how someone on a zero hours contract is going to get anxious, or a student facing an increasing mountain of debt, or a child struggling to hit the scores their school needs to top the league tables whilst their parents are splitting up and their so-called 'friends' are bullying them on Facebook. In most of these areas there are demand-side reforms to mental health (like this), but they don't always sit well with the austerity agenda. Mental ill-health costs £70 billion a year, according to the OECD. More than that, it's people's lives, and you can't put a price on that.

New Government Guidelines on Partnership with Faith Groups

The Department for International Development has just published guidelines on partnership working with faith groups. It's a mercifully brief and well-written document, some snippets reproduced below.

The issues in development parallel those faced within the UK as well. The document recognises the role of faith groups in relief, development, education, health etc., but also that faith can give rise to conflict. DFiD identifies 3 principles for working in partnership
 - Transparency - that faith groups are open about their goals and priorities
 - Mutual respect - everyone recognises what others bring to the table
 - Understanding  - the role faith groups play in development.

It also recognises several issues that need to be wrestled with to make the partnerships as effective as possible.

It's an encouraging read, not least for the stories of effective work between our government and relief agencies. I'm glad that at least one government department is functioning as it should, even if the rest of it resembles a drunkard on rollerblades. It also strikes me that nearly all of the document could apply to partnership working in the UK, which is pretty patchy, and faces a lot of the same challenges.

Faith groups are doing excellent work in providing not only humanitarian relief, but delivering health, education and other services in some of the most troubled parts of the world. They are making a real difference to countless lives. The work of governments alone will never be enough. For lasting change, states must fully engage with a range of civil society organisations. I recognise the unique contribution of faith groups in both delivering development and connecting with communities in the UK and abroad, particularly those that are marginalised or can’t be reached by other means. (from the introduction by Andrew Mitchell, International Development Secretary)

Tearfund analysed the costs and benefits of the DFID funded disaster risk reduction programme implemented by Presbyterian Church in 53 remote villages of Mzimba District, Malawi. The study found that for each dollar invested, there was a positive return of 24 dollars to the community. The return of investment reflected increase in crop production, increases in small livestock production, reduced education drop-out rates and reduced mortality. In 2010

Challenge: Many development organisations have avoided the issue of faith and religion and its contribution to development. Many development agencies were heavily influenced by a Western tradition that draws a sharp distinction between religion and the state. Religion and faith has sometimes been regarded as a barrier to development and inherently contentious. Faith groups are sometimes excluded by development agencies and believe that when they are allowed in, they have to "leave their faith at the door". This estrangement however is not just one-sided. Some faith leaders typically see themselves as the defenders of traditional moral values amid the onslaught of a secular and materialistic world - and some want to have ‘nothing to do with official donors’ or with other faiths.

Press release here, (see God and Politics for some quotes from it) and it's encouraging to look at the headlines in the DFiD Annual Report, published on Monday. I'm proud to be part of a country which has got emergency food aid to 6m people, given out 12m anti-malaria nets, and helped over 5m children into primary school.

VAT compromise on listed places of worship

The Government has agreed to a compromise arrangement on charging VAT for repairs to listed places of worship. The VAT reform is staying in place, but alongside it the government are adding £30m to a grants pot for repairs to listed places of worship, and ring-fencing the funding for the rest of the parliament. The pot had originally been cut to £7m, and will now be £42m. For comparison, £23m of VAT rebates had been given in 2010-11, so there is more than enough to make up for the costs.

Having said that, it does seem needlessly bureaucratic to levy the VAT, then administer a fund to route it back to listed places of worship in grant form. The arrangements are pretty explicit: From 1 October 2012 all claimants should receive a full payout on the equivalent of the VAT they have incurred on repairs and alterations to listed places of worship.Wouldn't it be easier, and more cost-effective, to abolish the fund and put an equivalent tax cut in its place?

Anyway, good news, and it shows that the government will listen if you lobby hard and well. Which is nice for each single issue, though the danger is that every policy becomes shaped by interest groups and lobbying, rather than a coherent central strategy, and the whole thing unravels.

From Stalin to Mr Bean counter

Checking the Department for Communities and Local Government this morning for any info about Grant Shapps talk on housing later today, I noticed that the dates are all printed in Russian (at least I think it's Russian):

Added: 23 Июнь 2010

I don't know if this is a hangover from New Labour, a glitch in the software, or some wag who didn't like the budget and wants to jump the queue to become an 'efficiency saving'.

Good News on Mental Illness support

Great to hear that the Government wants to put more resources into tackling mental illness. That announcement at least makes more sense than the idea of naming and shaming public sector employees who are overpaid - bizarre to name and shame your own employees for the money you decide to pay them, but there you go.

A very sensible 'expert' was on the air on Jeremy Vine at lunchtime: not the first one, who seemed to be making more of a political point about inequality, and then didn't stick around for the inevitable critique of her position. Yes poverty is a big factor in mental illness, but it's far more complex than that. Following on was a very sensible GP (I think), Sarah Jarvis, who is well worth a listen, nails lots of myths and makes lots of excellent points in a very succinct way. The section on depression starts at about 1 hr 9 min 15 sec in.

More on the topic in general at the BBC's Headroom site.

Where's Woolas?

A number of us have been trying to contact Phil Woolas to ask for the deportation of Elizabeth Kiwunga Rushamba to Uganda (due tomorrow) to be halted. Background here, this weeks events here, here and here.

Given the timescale, sending letters is out of the question, but now emails are getting this automated response:

"Thank you for sending an email to Phil Woolas, Member of Parliament for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

Due to the volume of email we are receiving, we can no longer accept casework electronicially. Please write to Phil at: Lord Chambers 11 Church Lane Oldham OL1 3AN

If your query is urgent, please telephone our constituency office on 0161 624 4248.

If your correspondence relates to the Home Office, please forward your correspondence to:
Home Office Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

With all best wishes and many thanks for your understanding in this matter.
Office of Phil Woolas MP Oldham East and Saddleworth"

You'll notice that the Home Office contact is a surface mail address. There is an email ( mailto:public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk) on the Home Office contacts page next to this address, but it also informs you that We aim to answer your enquiry - whether by email or letter - within 20 working days. That's not very helpful, as we're only working in a timescale of 24-48 hours here. Elizabeth was taken by border control officials on Monday.

Ok, we'll phone on that constituency number. Except that
"House of Commons rules mean that Phil can only deal with enquiries from people who live in Oldham East and Saddleworth." (says his website). So if you ring the number to plead Elizabeth's case but don't live in the area, it's against the rules for Phil Woolas to do anything about it.

I can understand that government ministers don't want to be deluged with email just because it's easy to fire one off, and some bods on the internet have put a campaign together. But the net effect of all this is that there's no way for the general public to get in touch with Phil Woolas within the necessary time-frame. In 20 days time Elizabeth could be in a Ugandan jail and her infant children taken from her and put in an orphanage. A sympathetic letter from the Home Office will be worse than useless by then.

Update: Just got this:

Hi folks, Just a plea for everyone to write first class to Phil Woolas today - as you may have already read, they are not accepting emails.

Rt Hon Phil Woolas Home Office Direct Communications Unit 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

So, don't forget to include Elizabeth's HO Ref: 1147269/5

please remind Phil Woolas that Elizabeth was only following his suggestion of the 6th August to gather medical reports and more information but weren't given the time to do it.

you could mention the manner in which Elizabeth and the children were taken and the bullying tactics of the Immigration Officials. They said, in front of the children, 'if you don't come quietly Elizabeth, we'll handcuff you and carry you down the stairs'. They also put E and the children in separate vehicles.

Don't forget to send a copy to Alan Milburn (you can do that by email) Elizabeth's flight is booked for 8pm tomorrow night. In the meantime, we are hopeful that we have found a solicitor.

The Tweeting Civil Servant

A Whitehall chappy has produced a 20-page guide to Twitter for fellow mandarins. Some of it is quite sensible:

... once anyone does follow a Whitehall Twitter stream it recommends they should automatically be "followed back" on the grounds that it is not only good etiquette, but could result in a poor Twitter reputation if not done ‑ and in extreme cases could lead to the account being suspended.

In urging his fellow Whitehall civil servants to use Twitter, Williams sets out several grounds rules for the kind of content that needs to make it work:

• Human: He warns that Twitter users can be hostile to the "over-use of automation" - such as RSS feeds – and to the regurgitation of press release headlines: "While corporate in message, the tone of our Twitter channel must therefore be informal spoken English, human-edited and for the most part written/paraphrased for the channel."

• Frequent: a minimum of two and maximum of 10 tweets per working day, with a minimum gap of 30 minutes between tweets to avoid flooding followers' Twitter streams. (Not counting @replies or live coverage of a crisis/event.) Downing Street spends 20 minutes on its Twitter stream with two-three tweets a day plus a few replies, five-six tweets a day in total.

• Timely: in keeping with the "zeitgeist" feel of Twitter, official tweets should be about issues of relevance today or events coming soon.

• Credible: while tweets may occasionally be "fun", their relationship to departmental objectives must be defensible.

Alongside the promised tweetable content of minsters' thoughts and reflections following key meetings and events is something rather more sinister sounding called "thought leadership". Also known as "linked blogging", the idea is that by highlighting relevant research, events, awards and other action elsewhere on the web, the department's Twitter feed gets a reputation as a reliable filter of high quality content.

whole piece here at the Guardian. The full document is here, composed by Neil Williams, who works for Peter Mandelson covering 'digital engagement' (and I just thought that meant shaking hands).

Do we want our taxpayers money spent on this?

Is this an apology?

"I want to apologise on behalf of politicians on behalf of all parties for what has happened in the events of the last few days." (Gordon Brown)

or this?
"We have to acknowledge just how bad this is. The public are really angry and we have to start by saying, look, this system that we had, that we used, that we operated, that we took part in - it was wrong and we're sorry about it." (David Cameron)

or this?
"I accept that the whole system is in disrepute ." (Nick Clegg)

Quick quiz, so you can keep up:
1. Which politician has apologised for the media printing details of MP's expenses in the last few days, but not for what his own cabinet members have actually done at any time before that?
2. Which politician has apologised for the system, but not for people's abuse of it?

Ok everybody, lets practice. "I'm sorry for what I did with your taxes". All together now, I can't hear you in Westminster "I'm sorry for what I did with your taxes".

Actually, lets pull teeth, it'll be easier. Is that 'actionable' enough for you?

Who's Milking Who?

11 pages in todays Telegraph on the MP's expenses 'scandal', which they seem to be releasing as slowly as they can. At this rate it will be roughly 30 days to get through all 650 or so MP's. In my local Tesco's corner shop there were two stacks of Telegraphs (unprecedented), shunting the Mirror and Express out of the way.

Remind me who is milking this expenses thing? Is it MP's, or the press? Or the retailers? Or pretty much everybody?

It's not about 'systems' (did the party leaders agree on a common line yesterday? What are Cameron and Clegg expecting to come out about their people?), it's about character. Being an MP doesn't make you immune from greed, neither does being a journalist, nor does being a retailer. And if you're in a culture that winks at it, or even encourages it, then it's even harder to act with integrity.

This doesn't just expose the greed of MP's, it exposes the greed of everybody. Isn't that what got us into the credit crunch in the first place?

Welfare Reform: Injustice Alert

I've posted a critique of the Governments welfare reform proposals, announced during the week, at the Wardman Wire. You can read the full article there, but here's some of it.


Lone Parents and Families.
The proposals for lone parents are that they will be on conditional benefits by the time their children are 7+, and whilst their children are 3-7 they’ll be taking steps back to work. The legislation “will enable advisers to require lone parents with a youngest child aged 3 or over to undertake work-related activity, a skills health check and training…” (para 6.68, my emphasis). If they don't comply, benefits can be stopped.

Why is this? Because the paper has “an emphasis on tackling the underlying causes of poverty rather than just treating the symptoms” (para 7.9), and if lone parents are working, their children are less likely to be in poverty.

But that’s not the only cause of child poverty. The governments own figures (see tables in chapter 4) show that children are twice as likely to be in either absolute or relative poverty if they are in lone parent households, compared to households with 2 parents. One underlying cause of poverty is family structure, yet this is an issue the government consistently refuses to address. The best thing you can do for your kids is wait until you’ve got a faithful partner to have them with. It doesn’t always work, but it’s a start.

There are two other injustices here:

1. Parenthood is work. Even with a 7 year old, you are on call 24/7, and if you put together the work involved in looking after them, creating a good home environment, and doing all the mundane things which need going when you’ve got kids, then that is a full time job. Yet the implicit message here is that it’s not, we would rather you stick your kids in ‘wraparound childcare’ (which may well be substandard in the first place) so that you can do paid work.

Good, attentive parenting can do more for your kids than a few hours on the checkout at ASDA, or whatever other McJob you’re forced to accept by your personal job trainer. What stuns me is that parents of 3-6 year olds will get coaching and training offered in work skills, but nothing whatsoever in parenting skills. Once again, there is no value or support given to their primary occupation. An investment in the parenting and relational skills of parents of under-7’s will do a lot more for their children’s wellbeing than forcing them to return to work once their child hits 7.

2. It singles out the poor. There may be a small army of lone parents desperate to get back to work, and they’ll get more support to do that through these proposals. But there is also a small army of non-working parents who will escape government coercion. These are the partners of working people who don’t qualify for benefit, so the government can’t wave a big stick at them to get them back into the labour market. Actually it can, it’s called Child Tax Credit, but there is nothing here about stopping CTC (or Child Benefit) for middle class mums. Why pick on lone parents? Because they are easier to coerce through the benefits system, and, if you’re cynical, it might just be about the votes too.

Let me be clear: I don’t think that any full-time parent of children under 16 should be coerced into the labour market, and it is unjust and unfair that only the poorest and most vulnerable parents are going to be coerced in this way.

Work and Mental Health
The White Paper notes, almost in passing, that “Mental health conditions are now the single biggest cause of absence from work and of claims for incapacity benefits” (para 5.83). Yet in a 210 page document there are only 6 paragraphs on mental health, which basically say “we’re not sure we know enough about this.”

Despite that, those with mental health problems will also come under the regime of ‘job consultants’ to help them back into work. How on earth the government plans to train up thousands of Job Centre employees to do this isn’t explored. There is a bewildering range of mental illnesses, and understanding everything from anxiety disorders to seasonal depression, OCD and anorexia will require a big input of training.

My worry is that the training just won’t happen, so decisions about benefits will be taken by people who simply don’t know what they’re talking about. The very process of seeing your benefits at risk will heighten stress and anxiety for some, and what safeguards are there? “We would not put in place sanctions against anyone without first contacting them, their carer or their health professional” (para 5.85). Well that's reassuring. Not. It's a commitment to inform, nothing more. How is placing the mentally ill under more pressure going to help them?

Again, this is symptoms and not cause. There are a nest of cultural, economic and social reasons for the epidemic of mental illness, but there is nothing here that proposes to tackle any of them.