Tuesday, 10 January 2006

Government WILL manage behaviour

Respect_logo_1 And here it is. The Respect Action Plan and the respect website now published. Tony Blair's speech is here.

A quick read-through of the plan suggests it's more thorough than I had been led to believe but seems to confirm the sense of almost unrelieved negativity that we got from the publicity trail. Enforcing respect is seen emphatically as an issue of democracy: 'what the majority wants.'

Various points of interest:

"Within the next year we will ensure that all Government funded regeneration schemes are accompanied by measures to manage behaviour." (Empahsis added).

OK, that's pretty clear. As for the scrutiny process:

"We will place a duty on district level ward councillors to consider issues, and respond within a prescribed timescale. The majority of problems should be resolved at this stage."

On Local Area Agreements:

"By 2007, all upper tier local authorities will have an LAA, including a mandatory outcome on Respect and anti-social behaviour." This provision will include a requirement for all authorities to ensure that intensive family support projects are in place where they are needed.

And yes, there are proposals for activities for children and young people (see chapter 2) - although they look pretty skinny from here.

10 Jan 2006 11:02:37 | Governance and participation, Neighbourhood relations, Social capital

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Broken window of opportunity? Plenty of comment out there today about the Respect agenda. I chose to watch tv and GMTV's coverage was so poor - bizarrely calling on Anne Atkins in a blurry attempt to stir things up - that their editors really deserve a parenting order. The BBC, meanwhile, gave us an insightful visit to street level work in Manchester; and in the studio, Tristram Hunt again making more sense than most. Among the proposals: 'Local scrutiny committees,' which will have to examine problems flagged up by local people in "community calls to action." More parenting courses, with more agencies able to impose parenting orders on those parents who refuse to take up help when their children are "out of control." A "national parenting academy," to train social workers, clinical psychologists, community safety officers and youth justice workers about advising parents. Powers to close any property which is the focus for "persistent and serious nuisance." The first of these is the most interesting I think, in the way it continues the fragmentation and reconfiguring of local democracy. How will these committees relate to the structures of neighbourhood governance? And more importantly perhaps, is this going to increase the likelihood of potentially damaging divisions between the locally-engaged ('committee-people') and the disengaged ('not-a-busybody' or 'simply too-busy')? Anyway, this doesn't look like a package of draconian measures to me. The legal powers are not really the point. I think (hope) it's this government's way of giving momentum to what is essentially a civil society issue. As Hunt said, there are a whole lot of forces working in the other direction - decline of the family, decline of faiths, increased mobility, globalisation etc; and civil relations are a legitimate area for government influence in the face of that. What the government appears to be trying to do is to stimulate a campaign, and the Respect action plan has to be seen in the context of other approaches including Cleaner Safer Greener, and the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. That said - 'Attending Parenting Classes' will become a label like ASBOs. Where's the improvement in social services and mental health services for the parents who are having difficulties? (Setting up something called a 'Parenting Academy' is simply asking for derision). And where's the provision for young people? The Youth Matters consultation should give some hooks on which to peg demands: but really, 'Give respect Get respect' was a gaping opportunity for the government to claim some kind of role in providing places for kids to go, increased services for parents, and even (we can always hope) "the development of community networks and local engagement." £50m may not be much for the Respect agenda but some of it would do nicely for a few youth centres and youth workers.
PREVIOUS POST
Transience in cities High levels of transience can be problematic for community development and the viability of neighbourhoods. In terms of cities, which attract high numbers of transient people, there are complex issues to do with the provision of services. Greater London Enterprise published last month the report of a European project which sought to understand the implications of population mobility. The main themes of the recommendations are: Making neighbourhoods attractive places to live through more responsive services Breaking barriers to accessing services, and Recognising the impact of population mobility. More on the project on the URBACT site. The Social Exclusion Unit is due to publish a report on 'people who move frequently' fairly soon.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments