Butt: The working poor, disabled and young families will be hit by 'Coalition Poll Tax' passed tonight

Brent Council tonight approved the Council Tax Support scheme that Council leader, Muhammed Butt, described as a Coalition Poll Tax that had been forced on the Council by the Government.

Butt, confessing that the scheme was the most unsettling thing that he'd had to do in his political life, said that the Council had been faced with 'equally nasty' choices over which vulnerable groups would be hit. The working poor, the disabled and families with young children would all suffer.  By definition, anyone entitled to Council Tax Support was vulnerable but 'some are more vulnerable than others.'  Pensioners and war pensioners had been protected and most now having to contribute would pay no more than £4.99 a week. He went on however to admit that was still  'a significant amount of money from people who, frankly, just don't have it.'

'Painful and difficult' changes had to be made with the better off claimants having to pay more and the amount of savings allowed reduced from £16,000 to £6,000.

Cllr Butt called for councillors to support the scheme that was 'as fair as it can be'.  Rounding on the Opposition benches  he declared, 'It is your government, your  Coalition, your actions that have brought this about, You are taking money from the strivers and strugglers, the vulnerable and the disabled and giving it to the rich. You should stand up and say sorry to the people of Brent.'

In the questions that followed Butt was asked why the scheme assumed a collection rate of 80% rather than 85%. He responded that  the Council had to make a realistic assumption when collecting tax from 24,000 people who had never paid it before. Lib Dem councillor Barry Cheese asked Butt to look again at the levy on young job seekers who were already under pressure with parents who themselves would be hard up. 

Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber asked why an £800,000 buffer had been set aside in a scheme of £5.1m and why reserves weren't used instead. A cushion of 20% was excessive. Butt responded that the buffer was normal prudential action. Lorber said that the reduction of savings allowance to £6,000 from £16,000 was too much and that this was often money put aside for a funeral.

Lorber went on to say that in the briefing that preceded the council meeting they had been told that they had to accept the scheme - there was no alternative.   He put forward amendments that would protect young job seekers for the first 12 months after their first claim, retain the £16,000 savings allowance and  reduce the minimum contribution to Council Tax from 20% to 15%.  Conservative leader Cllr Kansagra repeated his usual 'blame the Labour government' line and suggested that Labour was choosing to hit the poor rather than make the necessary cuts in services. Tory councillor HB Patel made a somewhat incoherent attack on the plans to increase council tax on empty properties and second homes - 'You are taking away money!'

Defending the proposed Council Tax Support scheme Cllr Powney said that the low level of council reserves had been criticised over many years and that the incoming administration had decided to bring them into line with auditors' recommendations. We had to recognise the difficulty in getting the 24,000 to pay up and that the monies available for the scheme would be eroded by inflation in subsequent years. He said that the £6,000 savings threshold had been chosen to be in line with the Coalition's proposals for Universal Benefit and that if he disagreed with it Lorber should the issue up with Sarah Teather and government ministers.

Labour voted down the Lib Dem amendments and the scheme was approved.

The Labour benches were unusually subdued, as were the Lib Dems, and it was clear that Cllr Butt was not the only one 'unsettled' by the measures that were being taken that will, in a few months times, lead to people's lives becoming even more difficult and some families having to choose between food, heating and paying their council tax.

What is even worse is that many of those that will be hit do not yet know what is coming...

Kiss Curls in Court - the latest from Brent Libraries hearing

I popped into the afternoon session at the High Court today to see how the case was progressing. Crammed on to an  uncomfortable, creaking bench and barely able to hear the proceedings my attention kept wandering to the back of Councillor Powney's head where beguiling kiss curls spread across his shoulders. Enough! Back to the serious stuff...

Brent Council's case was being presented and their basic claim was that their decision had been rational, based on 'the facts on the ground' (including their financial plight), that any view of the reasonableness of their decision on grounds of whether their library service was 'comprehensive and efficient' was for the Secretary of State and not the Court, and that their consultation had been thorough and followed common procedures.  They argued that Section 7 of the Libraries and Museums Act mentioned library services and facilities but not buildings as such so that guidance in the Section did not include premises. Their basic case was that the Libraries Transformation Project would give a better library service from fewer buildings.

The areas where the Council's case began to crumble a little under the judge's questioning was the timing and thoroughness of the Equalities Impact Assessment and the lack of detail in the Needs Assessment.  The judge said that the LA seemed to have only assessed needs at a very general level. He  asked if a high level decision has been made on data which had not been spelled out. He said that from the data you could not tell how particular groups, like mothers with young children or schools had been considered. They did not feature in an assessment of need for the particular fixed facility which they could attend. There was no analysis of how the Library Transformation project would cater for them.

Another issue which perplexed him, and Brent's answer hadn't yet satisfied him when the Court adjourned, was the matter of the criteria for voluntary groups to make an offer to run buildings. He was concerned about groups not being informed of the criteria and the evaluation process for bids changing over time. He also asked about whether such offers were supernumerary to what Brent considered (in its transformed state) a 'comprehensive and efficient service'.

The Council side seemed to get a little unhappier as the afternoon proceeded and the Campaigners slightly more confident but it appears that it may eventually be decided on quite narrow interpretations of terms like 'viable', 'robust', 'reasonable' and 'comprehensive'. Brent Council is arguing for a very limited concept of consultation, which is in line with their recent practice - emphasising it is not negotiation, but made great play of the pages of submissions, letters, area consultative forum meeting minutes etc - but did not tell the Court that they had ignored them all.

The proceedings will go on tomorrow morning when the case resumes in Court No 2 at 10.30am. Supporters are urged to get down to the Strand to demonstrate outside and then join the audience in the public gallery.  This helps demonstrate the strength of feeling in the community and the importance of the case.  If you are worried about getting a sore bottom, be reassured that speeches from the Council and Campaigners QCs are not likely to take much more than one and a quarters hours. The judge is unlikely to make an extempore judgement tomorrow and may announce his decision as late as August. Brent Council has promised to take no action over the six library buildings until the judgement is announced.

'Flakman' under fire on library closures

Cllr Powney certainly lived up to his nickname of Flakman when he appeared at last night's library consultation in front of a passionate, vocal and rebellious audience. This followed his appearances at Area Forums last year when he had a tough time defending the Council's Waste Strategy. Powney took the flak last night from the stage while other Labour councillors sat quietly in the audience.  He made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible (the closure of half the borough's libraries) but ended up quoting Margaret Thatcher's TINA mantra (There is no alternative).

In fact the audience came up with quite a few alternatives including abandoning the expensive Civic Centre project, getting rid of highly paid council officers, reducing opening hours rather than the number of libraries, and refusing to implement Tory-Lib Dem Coalition cuts.

Contributors emphasised the importance of libraries to the cultural life of local communities and particular emphasis was placed on their importance to young people, the economically disadvantaged and older members of the community. I stressed the importance of children having a library within independent  walking distance of their homes and described the buzz at Neasden library on a Friday evening with a homework club in progress, people working at computers and others borrowing books. Children from Braintcroft Primary School and adult learners using the recently installed ICT resources will be deprived of a vital resources which could change their lives.

After the meeting I spoke to a pensioner who despaired at losing community facilities that had been in place for years and helped many generations of Brentonians. Libraries are particularly valuable to older people because they provide both stimulation through books and valuable social contact. It is also important for them that they are within easy travelling distance.

A borough-wide 'Save Our Libraries' campaign would be one way of resolving some of the differences in approach that were evident  amongst residents at the meeting.  There is a particularly active campaign around Kensal Rise Library (45,755 visit per year at a cost of £4 per visit) and the group seemed ready to form a volunteer force to help save the library. Others were against this idea, wanting a full, properly funded service.  Such volunteer support may not be available in less affluent areas such as Neasden (117,604/£2.30) but where the library is vital to raise the life chances of the local population.  Another area of potential conflict is the '40% proposal' where all  libraries would cut their opening hours by 40% rather than closing some. It was suggested this would safeguard the future of the buildings which would otherwise be disposed of or revert to  trusts such as All Souls College, which originally provided the land. A reduction in opening hours would still impact on accessibility and jobs.

On the issue of volunteers and charities Michael Rosen, the children's poet and former Children's Laureate was absolutely clear in a recent Daily Mirror article:

It is a scandal. What this Government is doing is taking over where Thatcher left off. The library system took 150 years to build up and they are destroying it.

I am completely opposed to this idea of handing libraries over to charities and retailers. It is purely ideological and there is no justification for taking libraries out of public ownership.

Books should be free to all and not reliant on charity donations. However well-meaning, charities end up begging for money. It is another Tory attempt to break the social contract by which we look after each other through taxes

When I suggested that the Labour Council were not fulfilling their commitment to protect the most vulnerable from the Coalition cuts Cllr Powney outlined the dire  condition of the Council's finance (Readers of this blog will know that I have posted articles on this), demanded that we be realistic and said that if the Labour councillors refused to implement the cuts they would be replaced by others who would implement them away  - with the implication that they would do so less sensitively.

This is an argument that we are going to hear regularly in the Area Forums in the coming month when Ann John and Muhammed Butt appear to talk about the impact of the cuts on local services and the difficult decisions they will have to make.

Meanwhile, back to Michael Rosen and some reading for adults opposed to the cuts (from the Independent)

So angered is Michael Rosen by the Coalition's plans for welfare cuts, the children's novelist and poet paid the bulk of production costs for a new anthology called Emergency Verse, a compilation of protest poetry featuring work by more than 100 writers, including the Beat poet Michael Horovitz, Jeremy Reed and John O'Donoghue. Rosen says he is "very angry" at the roll-back of "advances" that softened "some of the worst effects of rampant capitalism", adding: "These rampant capitalists, who walk off with the majority of the wealth anyway, now want to steal our services too – people who have no other means of getting health care, education and social care will have it snatched away." The anthology was launched at the Southbank Centre's Poetry Library, and copies can be downloaded for £2.99 from www.therecusant.org.uk.

Prior to the consultation meeting Brent Fightback said:

Brent Fightback supports keeping ALL our libraries open. Once closed, they are gone for ever. We hope that, while pursuing their local campaigns, the libraries campaigners will unite and will become part of our broader campaign to defend jobs, services, pensions, benefits and the environment.

The Kensal Rise campaign can be contacted at kensalriselibraryusers@hotmail.co.uk and they have a blog LINK and a Facebook group 'Save Kensal Rise' library.

Preston library users are getting organised and I will put their details up when I have them.

The Friends of Cricklewood Library can be contacted via eric.pollock@tiscali.co.uk Information

Many authors and individuals including Alan Gibbons  and Michael Rosen have set up Campaign for the Book and Voices for the Library are asking individuals to send them statements on how important libraries are in their lives.

The Guardian has also covered the meeting using Kensal Rise as an example of wider closures  LINK