Further Reading
Member News
ePolitix.com Stakeholders comment on the government's policy and legislative plans set out in the 'Building Britain's future' document.
Stakeholder Response: Association of British Insurers
Responding to details of the draft Financial Services and Business Bill, Peter Vipond, the ABI's director of financial regulation, said:
"Enhancing the FSA's powers, so long as they are accountable, will be of real benefit – especially the ability to act at short notice. It is equally important to make sure the powers are exercised in conjunction with those of the Bank of England."
"The promise to take action to retain the UK as a leading financial centre is a welcome pledge. This is a crucial juncture for the reputation of the UK and the expected future wave of regulation, if handled badly, could do the UK economy real harm. This pledge to retain competitiveness should also influence corporate and personal taxation and wider business policy."
Stakeholder Response: Construction Products Association
The Prime Minister's announcement for social and affordable housing, outlined yesterday in the government's Building Britain's Future, confirms the expectation that the government will miss its own target from the 2007 Housing Green Paper, according to the Construction Products Association.
In 2007 the government announced that it would provide at least 70,000 affordable homes a year by 2010/11 of which 45,000 would be social rentable, but this latest announcement states that only 56,450 affordable homes will be delivered, missing the target by more than 13,500.
Responding to the announcement, Michael Ankers, chief executive at the Construction Products Association said:
"We have been saying for some time that the government would miss its affordable housing targets, so this latest announcement should come as no surprise. However, it is difficult to understand why they need additional money to deliver fewer houses. The last Comprehensive Spending Review allocated the necessary funds to deliver the government's programme to the end of 2010/11, so why do they now need to divert money from other capital programmes to deliver a lower target that should be costing less? It sounds very much like the government is promising less for more.
"If for some reason the funds they require for this housing are being reallocated from elsewhere, then they need to explain which other capital projects will not now go ahead. The sooner this is clarified the better.
"On a brighter note the announcement that additional new private homes will be built as part of the Kickstart initiative is to be welcomed as this will limit the number of jobs lost across the industry as the economic downturn continues to bite."
Stakeholder Response: Metropolitan Police Federation
Any move to reduce bureaucracy to strictly necessary levels is to be welcomed. However, the Police, Crime and Private Security Bill, as outlined in the government document 'Building Britain's Future', would appear to negate the advantages that any such reduction would bestow, at least as far as Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) are concerned.
The Document states (section 5, para 13) that the public has "a right to police on the beat – with neighbourhood teams spending over 80 per cent of their time on the beat". This goal, while laudable, is difficult to reconcile with the new duties which the proposed legislation would impose on the teams.
For example, the document envisages the teams liaising with schools, youth workers and justice agencies over issues around crime and anti-social behaviour. There would be (para 18) more intelligence sharing with the Probation Service and other, unspecified, local agencies.
The proposed new burglary prevention initiative (para 18) would involve neighbourhood police teams working closely with the insurance industry and DIY retailers to provide advice packs and support.
In addition, they would (para 16) be encouraged to generate additional initiatives – the document gives, as possible examples, the project-management of public e-mail groups, the operation and staffing of premises where the public "can drop in and talk to the police and get crime prevention advice" and the provision of protective escort services for nervous travellers.
The document suggests that police should be held to account by the public at monthly beat meetings (we have further comments below on this topic), for which SNT officers will presumably have to gather facts and figures and prepare presentations.
We would remind the authors of the proposed legislation that in London (we obviously cannot speak for elsewhere in the country) a typical SNT comprises just one sergeant, two constables and three civilian support officers (CSOs) who work 40 hours a week. Their capacity to handle all the proposed duties above is handicapped both by their level of training and the duty time available to them.
Police are already held to account at local level by Police Community Consultative Groups (PCCGs). The proposed 'beat meetings' would therefore seem to be superfluous unless, of course, it is proposed to axe the PCCGs. The experience of many PCCGs is that, on the public side, the proceedings are dominated by a handful of individuals, often with personal agendas.
There is no reason to suppose that 'beat meetings' would be much different. The document advocates (para 9) giving residents the facility to express their views on prosecuting and sentencing cases. The power to charge was taken away from the police and given to the Crown Prosecution Service. It is hard to believe that the public has greater competency in this area than the police.
The process of liaison between police officers and CPS lawyers when a case is being considered for prosecution is probably most kindly described as "exacting". How the CPS will manage the additional burden of dealing with suggestions from an untrained public frankly stretches the imagination.
If the public make suggestions, they will need feedback on what happened to those suggestions and why. Who will deal with this? Are the police to be the link between the two? If so, a new bureaucratic function will have been introduced.
The document promises (para 15) that the White Paper "will respond to concerns over the policing of protests, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability in cases of alleged misconduct…".
The Independent Police Complaints Commission will doubtless be intrigued by the implication that it is failing to ensure accountability.
The same paragraph talks of the need to for "a clear commitment to proportionate public order policing". If this is what the ensuing legislation demands, then the legislators must define without ambiguity exactly how the police should deal with public disorder of every different type and scale. We await their wisdom and guidance with interest.
In the light of the document's reference to early warning signs of criminal behaviour, we are surprised it does not address the recommendations of the Bradley Report on people with mental health problems or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system. Perhaps Lord Bradley is not seen as suitably 'tough'.
As we hinted at above, a public which is going to become an active player in the pursuit and administration of criminal justice must, of necessity, be better educated about the CJS. We wonder how this might best be achieved. The time available to compose this response necessarily limits the amount of comment we are able to make and should not be taken as the totality of our views on the proposed legislation.
We would like to conclude by observing that the past decade has produced a torrent of police 'reform' and 'modernisation', each piece of which merely begets the next one and uses up valuable resources in its implementation.
There is, so far as we can see, no empirical demonstration of its value to the public.
The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published, in January 2008, a report entitled 'Policing in the 21st Century' which examined the wholesale reform which stemmed from the Government's 2001 White Paper 'Policing a New Century'.
The committee concluded that "these measures have not addressed the concerns of the public or police forces themselves and many of the original questions posed in the 2001 White Paper remain unresolved."
The Committee went on: "We recommend that an independent review, such as a Royal Commission, is established to review what the police do and how they are organised to do it."
The Police Federation has itself long been calling for a Royal Commission. It believes that only by this means can sound decisions be reached on the shape of policing in the years to come.
Stakeholder Response: National Union of Teachers
Commenting on Gordon Brown's announcement of Labour's draft legislative programme, Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said:
"Gordon Brown's announcement of one-to-one tuition for pupils, while not new, is certainly a positive move and I welcome the government's continued commitment to it.
"Children develop at different levels in their school career and it is essential that they have access to the additional help and support they need to overcome barriers to learning. Sometimes, because of home circumstances, they lack their classmates' confidence to learn.
"By making one-to-one tuition in schools an entitlement it ensures that all pupils benefit, not just the few whose parents can afford to pay for it.
"The greatest entitlement for children and young people is to be taught from nursery onwards by a fully qualified teacher. This must be a requirement of any tutors who are brought in to teach.
"At present the support offered to children with special needs often comes solely from teaching assistants. Those in the most need of learning or behaviour support deserve highly qualified professional help.
"The government's continued fixation with the idea that Academies and the National Challenge programme are the answer is simply wrong. What schools need to achieve their maximum potential is for the government to ensure that classrooms are staffed by fully qualified teachers, class sizes are reduced and the poverty gap closed."
Stakeholder Response: NASUWT
Commenting on the statement on 'Building Britain's future', Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said:
"It has to be right to shift the focus in public services from meeting targets to meeting the aspirations and needs of every individual.
"There is a wealth of evidence to demonstrate that the focus on meeting targets was becoming a barrier to ensuring high quality service delivery.
"The proposal for one to one 'catch up' tuition for children and young people who have fallen behind their peers will be attractive to parents and teachers alike.
"Teachers will get the support they need in ensuring that each pupil is achieving the highest possible standard.
"All parents will have access to the help and support which has previously been the preserve of those with money seeking to buy advantage for their children.
"There are many teachers who have recently retired, who work on supply or who are in the pool of inactive teachers who will welcome the opportunity to provide one to one support.
"Also welcome is the announcement of the guaranteed place in work, training or education for every under 25-year-old who has been out of employment for a year. This is a crucial strategy to prevent a generation being lost to unemployment.
"Federating schools, under the auspices of the local authority, is an excellent way of delivering pupil entitlement and value for money, particularly in small schools.
"However, there is no evidence that structural change to establish trusts or academies raises standards. There is in fact growing evidence that structural change becomes a distraction from focusing on improving outcomes for children and young people.
"I welcome the strong commitment to backing headteachers to enforce good behaviour. This is absolutely essential. School leaders must in turn support those in the front line in the classroom who face the day to day realities of challenging pupil behaviour.
"However, the role of governing bodies must not be forgotten. They have a responsibility to uphold the professional judgement of teachers and headteachers in matters of pupil discipline."
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.