NEU Executive recommends rejection of derisory unfunded Government pay offer

 20,000 teachers took part in a National Education Union on-line meeting this evening to hear the Government's pay offer after 6 days of intensive negotiations. As the meeting progressed, on-line comments showed teachers' anger at the offer and Co-General Secretary Kevin Courtney had to reassure them that the NEU was recommending members  reject the the ballot - which was to be sent out after the meeting.

The pay offer averaging 4.5% itself was poor but worse was it going to be unfunded apart from a Government contribution 0.5% thus creating a financial crisis for many schools, leading to potential redundancies, particularly in support staff.

The Government attempted to impose a condition that the offer would only stand if all four unions involved either recommended acceptance or were neutral, otherwise the offer would be witdrawn. The NEU will recommend rejection.

Clearly the ball is now in the Government's court.

The slides below give some headlines but you can see the full meeting HERE

 

THE GOVERNMENT REJECTED THESE DEMANDS

THE GOVERNMENT OFFERED

THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTEMPT TO SET CONDITIONS REJECTED BY NEU

Vix Lowthion, a high school teacher and Green Party spokesperson on education said this morning:

Could teachers feel any more let down, abandoned, insulted, angry and hated by government than we do this morning? 

We don't do this for them. We do it for our young people. We keep going. 

I can only conclude that the govt despise the entire profession. 

The feeling's mutual.

NAHT calls on government to justify its belief that June 1st is a wise move

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT said:

 Support for a fixed date for school return is vanishing quickly. What is needed now is local flexibility to determine when it is right for schools to open up to more pupils, informed by evidence of what is happening in their local area.

We have never expected certainty; all we have asked for is clarity. The publication of the evidence being used to inform the government's decision-making is an important step in achieving greater transparency.

We’ve now seen what evidence the government has been working with. We all want to see schools back as soon as possible, so NAHT has written again to the secretary of state for education today because we still need the government to explain why it has so strongly asserted that a return to school on 1 June is a wise thing to do.

The government needs to show greater flexibility and a willingness to take local circumstances into account. A robust test, trace and isolate policy is essential if we are to successfully return more pupils to school.

The powers that the Government are seeking in the Coronavirus Bill

These are the provisions in the Coronavirus Bill that the Government are proposing. They are wide-ranging, some sensible and others which contain risks.

The UK government’s coronavirus action plan, published on 3 March, set out measures to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak that are reasonable, proportionate and based on the latest scientific evidence. Specifically, it detailed:

• what we know about the virus and the disease it causes
• how we have planned for an infectious disease outbreak
• what we are planning to do next, depending on the course the coronavirus outbreak takes
• the role the public can play in supporting this response, now and in the future

The plan also includes information on the government’s 4-stage strategy: contain, delay, research, mitigate. It sets out advice for how the public should respond in each stage, including what to expect as the outbreak advances.

It also envisaged that changes to legislation might be necessary in order to give public bodies across the UK the tools and powers they need to carry out an effective response to this emergency. This paper sets out, subject to final approvals, the elements of the bill and the reasons why they are needed.

The development of an effective response to the epidemic requires a number of actions. Some of these involve the use of tools and powers that are set out in statute. The governments of the UK therefore resolved to review and where necessary amend the legislation, to ensure that the UK’s response is consistent and effective.

Some of the proposed changes therefore deal with easing the burden on frontline NHS and adult social care staff, some help staff by enabling them to work without financial penalty, and some support people and communities in taking care of themselves, their families and loved ones, and their wider community.

The legislation will be time-limited – for 2 years – and not all of these measures will come into force immediately. The bill allows the 4 UK governments to switch on these new powers when they are needed, and, crucially, to switch them off again once they are no longer necessary, based on the advice of Chief Medical Officers of the 4 nations.

The measures in the coronavirus bill are temporary, proportionate to the threat we face, will only be used when strictly necessary and be in place for as long as required to respond to the situation.

We have worked closely with the devolved administrations to develop an effective package of measures to support frontline staff and individuals involved in this vital national response.

Contents of the bill

The bill enables action in 5 key areas:

1. increasing the available health and social care workforce – for example, by removing barriers to allow recently retired NHS staff and social workers to return to work (and in Scotland, in addition to retired people, allowing those who are on a career break or are social worker students to become temporary social workers)
   
2. easing the burden on frontline staff – by reducing the number of administrative tasks they have to perform, enabling local authorities to prioritise care for people with the most pressing needs, allowing key workers to perform more tasks remotely and with less paperwork, and taking the power to suspend individual port operations
   
3. containing and slowing the virus – by reducing unnecessary social contacts, for example through powers over events and gatherings, and strengthening the quarantine powers of police and immigration officers
   
4. managing the deceased with respect and dignity – by enabling the death management system to deal with increased demand for its services
   
5. supporting people – by allowing them to claim Statutory Sick Pay from day one, and by supporting the food industry to maintain supplies
   

The proposals set out in the bill will significantly enhance the ability of public bodies across the UK to provide an effective response to tackle this epidemic. We are therefore aiming for it to reach the statute book and begin to take effect from the end of this month. However, the provisions relating to Statutory Sick Pay are intended to have retrospective effect to 13 March.

Increasing the available health and social care workforce

Although we are implementing measures to save lives through delaying and flattening the peak of the epidemic, it is clear that the next few months will present a significant level of challenge for the NHS and anyone working in caring professions. As in all sectors, there will be pressures from increased staff absence, if staff are unwell or self-isolating with their households.

In addition to this, there will be increased numbers of people becoming ill with COVID-19 and some of these people will require medical treatment or need to be admitted to hospital. These additional patient volumes will place pressure on our NHS. To ensure the best possible level of care is provided to those most in need, we may need to take measures to increase the available health and social care workforce and reduce the number of admin tasks they have to perform so they have more time to spend with patients.

To support this, the bill seeks to:

• enable regulators to emergency register suitable people as regulated healthcare professionals, such as nurses, midwives or paramedics. This might include (but will not be limited to) recently retired professionals and students who are near the end of their training. Registered staff can then be used appropriately, with decisions made on a local basis, to increase the available health and social care workforce and enable essential health and care services to function during the height of the epidemic
  
• enable regulators to temporarily add social workers to their registers who may have recently left the profession. This will ensure vital continuity of care for vulnerable children and adults
  
• enable employees and workers to take Emergency Volunteer Leave in blocks of 2, 3 or 4 weeks’ statutory unpaid leave and establish a UK-wide compensation fund to compensate for loss of earnings and expenses incurred at a flat rate for those who volunteer through an appropriate authority. This will ensure that volunteers do not suffer financial disadvantage as a result of performing a public good. Volunteers play a critical role in the delivery of health and social care services and are particularly important in caring for the most vulnerable in our society, such as the elderly, those with multiple long-term conditions or those suffering from mental ill-health
  
• provide indemnity for clinical negligence liabilities arising from NHS activities carried out for the purposes of dealing with, or because of, the coronavirus outbreak, where there is no existing indemnity arrangement in place. This will ensure that those providing healthcare service activity across the UK are legally protected for the work they are required to undertake as part of the COVID-19 response. This is in line with and will complement existing arrangements
  
• suspend the rule that currently prevents some NHS staff who return to work after retirement from working more than 16 hours per week, along with rules on abatements and drawn-down of NHS pensions that apply to certain retirees who return to work. This will allow skilled and experienced staff who have recently retired from the NHS to return to work, and also allow retired staff who have already returned to work to increase their commitments if required, without having their pension benefits suspended
  

Easing the burden on frontline staff, both within the NHS and beyond

In the NHS and in other sectors who undertake activities that are vital to keeping the country running safely and securely, we may also face particular increased pressures as a result of staff absence or increased work volumes. This could include those caring for children or in education, protecting our borders, detaining and treating people under the Mental Health Act, supporting local authorities and ensuring national security. By reducing the number of admin tasks they have to perform, allowing key workers to perform more tasks remotely and with less paperwork, we will enable these crucial services to continue to operate effectively during periods of reduced staffing.

To support this the bill seeks to:

• enable existing mental health legislation powers to detain and treat patients who need urgent treatment for a mental health disorder and are a risk to themselves or others, to be implemented using just one doctor’s opinion (rather than the current 2). This will ensure that those who were a risk to themselves or others would still get the treatment they need, when fewer doctors are available to undertake this function
  
• temporarily allow extension or removal of time limits in mental health legislation to allow for greater flexibility where services are less able to respond. These temporary changes would be brought in only in the instance that staff numbers were severely adversely affected during the pandemic period and provide some flexibility to help support the continued safe running of services under the Mental Health Act
  
• allow NHS providers to delay undertaking the assessment process for NHS continuing healthcare for individuals being discharged from hospital until after the emergency period has ended
  
• make changes to the Care Act 2014 in England and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 to enable local authorities to prioritise the services they offer in order to ensure the most urgent and serious care needs are met, even if this means not meeting everyone’s assessed needs in full or delaying some assessments. During a pandemic, a lot of people who work in health and social care could be off sick or may need to care for loved ones. This could mean that local authorities, which are responsible for social care, may not be able to do all the things they are usually required to do
  

Local authorities will still be expected to do as much as they can to comply with their duties to meet needs during this period and these amendments would not remove the duty of care they have towards an individual’s risk of serious neglect or harm.

These powers would only be used if demand pressures and workforce illness during the pandemic meant that local authorities were at imminent risk of failing to fulfil their duties and only last the duration of the emergency. It would ensure that local authorities will continue to be able to deliver the best possible care services during the peak and to protect the lives of the most vulnerable members of society.

• temporarily relax local authorities’ duties in relation to their duties to conduct a needs assessment and prepare an adult carer support plan/young care statement under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 and the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 to enable them to prioritise people with the greatest needs
  
• provide powers to require educational institutions or childcare providers to stay open or relax some requirements around education legislation in order to help these institutions run effectively during the event of an emergency. This could include reducing teacher ratios, adapting school meal standards and relaxing provisions for those with special educational needs. This will ensure that children, young people and those who work with them remain safe, while minimising disruption to everyday life and progression to further and higher education or employment by ensuring schools have the flexibility and support they need to respond pragmatically to the changing situation
  
• enable the Home Secretary to request that port and airport operators temporarily close and suspend operations if Border Force staff shortages result in a real and significant threat to the UK’s border security. This is to ensure the UK can maintain adequate border security throughout the pandemic and protect the public from the threat of criminality or importation of prohibited items that could result from an inadequately controlled border. This would only be used in extremis, where necessary and proportionate, and any direction will be kept to the minimum period necessary to maintain the security of the UK border
  
• expand availability of video and audio link in court proceedings. This would include magistrates’ court hearings taking place by phone or by video, should an individual appeal restriction of movement due to quarantine measures. This will ensure that an appeal takes place but will not require a person to break quarantine in order to attend in person. It will also enable the expansion of the availability of video and audio link in various criminal proceedings, including full video and audio hearings in certain circumstances, and public participation in relation to these and other court and tribunal proceedings conducted by audio and video. The measures will enable a wider range of proceedings to be carried out by video, so that courts can continue to function and remain open to the public, without the need for participants to attend in person. This will give judges more options for avoiding adjournments and keeping business moving through the courts to help reduce delays in the administration of justice and alleviate the impact on families, victims, witnesses and defendants
  
• ensure that the Treasury can transact its business at all times, by making it possible for a single commissioner or a single Treasury minister to sign instruments and act on behalf of the commissioners, during a COVID-19 emergency period. Under current rules, where any instrument or act is required to be signed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, it must be signed by 2 or more of the commissioners. This change will ensure that the Treasury can transact its business at all times during a COVID-19 emergency period, should commissioners be unable to fulfil their duty
  
• allow temporary judicial commissioners (JCs) to be appointed at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, in the event that there are insufficient JCs available to operate the system under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This is the one of the critical pieces of domestic legislation for national security. It creates the statutory basis for the use of the investigatory powers by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, using warrants issued under the act. These warrants provide the agencies with the capability they need to protect national security and investigate and prevent serious crime.
  
  The Home Secretary, again at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, will also be allowed to vary the time allowed for urgent warrants to be reviewed by a JC and how long they can last before they need to be reviewed. The maximum time allowed for a review will be increased to a maximum of 12 days (up from the current 3 days). Maintaining national security capabilities at a time of potential widespread upheaval is critical and it is necessary to ensure that the powers to vary specific aspects of the regime are available to the government should they be deemed necessary, for example if there are fewer JCs available than usual.
  

Delaying and slowing the virus

The government’s objective is to delay and flatten the peak of the epidemic by bringing forward the right measures at the right time, so that we minimise suffering and save lives. To slow the virus, we will need people to reduce unnecessary social contacts, which, for periods of time, may mean preventing gatherings of people, postponing electoral events over the course of the year or closing schools, further or high education premises or childcare providers. This will help mitigate the risk to public health arising from such mass gatherings.

This will happen only where necessary, to help minimise disruption to everyday life and progression of children and young people to further and higher education or employment. The measures would only be put in place for the period of time required to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

To support this, the bill seeks to:

• enable the government to restrict or prohibit events and gatherings during the pandemic in any place, vehicle, train, vessel or aircraft, any movable structure and any offshore installation and, where necessary, to close premises
  
• provide a temporary power to close educational establishments or childcare providers
  
• postpone the local, mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections that were due to take place in England in May this year until May 2021. Provision will also be made to postpone other electoral events over the course of the year (such as by-elections)
  

It’s also important that all UK countries have equivalent legal measures in place to delay or prevent further transmission of the virus, to ensure consistency across the whole UK. For example, removing a current restriction in how Scottish territorial Health Boards can deliver vaccination programmes would mean that, when a vaccine becomes available, it can reach as many people as possible. To support this, the bill seeks to:

• enable the departments of health in Northern Ireland and Scotland to make regulations for additional measures to be introduced to help them delay or prevent further transmission of COVID-19. Equivalent powers already exist in England and Wales and these provisions would bring them in line with the rest of the UK
  
• remove a restriction in how Scottish territorial Health Boards can deliver vaccination programmes so a wider range of healthcare professionals in Scotland would be able to administer a vaccine.
  

Public support and compliance is crucial and we are grateful for the flexibility people have shown, but we need to ensure police and immigration officers have the authority to enforce these measures where necessary. Therefore, the bill will enable the police and immigration officers to detain a person, for a limited period, who is, or may be, infectious and to take them to a suitable place to enable screening and assessment.

Managing the deceased with respect and dignity

The steps the government is taking to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic will save lives. However, sadly, as has already been seen, people will lose loved ones as a result of this disease. We want to ensure the deceased are treated with the utmost respect and dignity and that the current procedures in relation to death and still-birth registration and management are modified to enable this and to protect public health. This will take account of the fact that families who have lost a loved one may be self-isolating, and that there may be reduced capacity to register and manage deaths as a result of pandemic-related sickness absence.
The bill intends to make changes to:

• mean a coroner is only to be notified where a doctor believes there is no medical practitioner who may sign the death certificate, or that they are not available within a reasonable time of the death
  
• introduce powers to enable the provisions under the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 relating to the collection of ashes to be suspended and replaced with a duty to retain until the suspension is lifted, except where family wishes are known. Also, suspend an offence in section 49 of the 2016 Act, allowing any relative of the deceased to complete the cremation application form, regardless of the required hierarchy set out by section 65 of the 2016 Act
  
• expand the list of people who can register a death to include funeral directors acting on behalf of the family
  
• enable electronic transmission of documents that currently have to be physically presented in order to certify the registration of a death
  
• remove the need for a second confirmatory medical certificate in order for a cremation to take place
  
• remove the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 requirement that any inquest into a COVID-19 death must be held with a jury. Other notifiable diseases will still require an inquest with a jury
  
• suspend the referral of certificates to the Death Certification Review Service (DCRS) for review in Scotland under the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011. The timing of the suspension to be at the discretion of Scottish ministers
  

If the scientific advice indicates that the number of people who might die from COVID-19 is likely to significantly exceed the capacity locally to manage the deceased and other contingency measures have been deployed, local government will have the ability to take control of a component or components of the death management process in their area.

For example, local authorities may choose to direct local actors such as funeral directors, mortuaries owners, crematoriums owners and others, to streamline the death management process. This may include an increase in the operating times of crematoriums, directing companies to use their vehicles to move bodies, or directing others not directly involved in the funeral sector, to provide necessary support.

Only in the most extreme situations where there is a risk to public health would the powers of direction be used and only be used when scientific evidence and operational advice suggests that it is necessary. Activating the powers will ensure the local death management system continues to work effectively to protect public health and the dignity of the deceased. Personal choice will be respected as far as possible, especially in regard to how we handle loved ones after they have passed.

Protecting and supporting people

We are asking people to stay at home if they have a high temperature or a new and continuous cough, or if anyone in their household has one of those 2 symptoms. In the event of a wider outbreak of COVID-19, the number of people that would be off work would increase significantly. This would include those that were displaying-virus like symptoms and those who were self-isolating as a precautionary measure.

We want to ensure the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) provisions support people in complying with this request and that they have retrospective effect from 13 March 2020. By ensuring that people receive SSP from the first day that they are off work, we will ensure that those who are unwell or have been instructed to self-isolate can do so without the fear of losing pay. This will be an important measure in the event of a severe outbreak. By refunding small businesses, we hope to alleviate the significant financial burden on employers through increased SSP costs.

The bill is therefore seeking to:

• give the government the power to temporarily suspend the rule that means SSP is not paid for the first 3 days of work that you miss because of sickness. These days are known as waiting days. Lifting this rule will enable us to respond quickly to an outbreak
  
• enable employers with fewer than 250 employees to reclaim SSP paid for sickness absences relating to coronavirus during the period of the outbreak. This is because the government wants to ensure that businesses are supported to deal with the temporary economic impacts of an outbreak of coronavirus
  
• require industry to provide information about food supplies, in the event that an industry partner does not co-operate with our current voluntary information-sharing arrangements during a period of potential disruption
  

CBI call for urgent sick pay measures during Coronavirus crisis

From the CBI

The CBI is today (Thursday) calling for urgent action on five areas of sick pay to support employees and businesses in light of Coronavirus. These reflect firms’ determination to ensure that people are able to follow public health guidance without fear of not being paid.

Business supports the Government’s decision that, in these extraordinary circumstances, Statutory Sick Pay will begin from day one. But there are five additional temporary measures that would support workers even more: 

1. Extending Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to all workers (e.g. agency staff and others on flexible or zero-hours contracts) who self-isolate themselves in accordance with public health guidance
2. Clarifying in law that being unable to work because you’re self-isolating to comply with public health guidance - even if you are otherwise healthy - entitles a worker to statutory sick pay
3. Clarifying that workers who are following public health advice on Coronavirus are entitled to SSP even if they don’t have a GP’s ‘fit note’
4. Removing the need to earn over £118 a week to qualify for SSP, which is unfair to part-time employees. The Government proposed this in a 2019 consultation - which the CBI supported - and these plans should now accelerate
5. Introducing emergency relief for business – especially small businesses – if the total cost of sick pay becomes unsustainable. Small businesses may be particularly susceptible to cash-flow problems meaning that prompt reimbursement will be key to their ability to continue supporting staff. 

The priorities for business in the coming weeks will be to ensure that staff are supported if they need to self-isolate, to work with the Government at a time of national need and to ensure the investment in supporting the UK economy is fairly shared between business and the Government. 

Josh Hardie, CBI Deputy Director-General, said:

“Businesses know they have an important part to play in making it easy for people to comply with public health guidance. It’s vital there are no incentives to ignore the advice because of a fear of not being paid. Fairness and upholding their duty of care for the health and safety of their staff is at the heart of firms’ plans for responding to coronavirus. That’s why the CBI is calling for the extension of Statutory Sick Pay. 

“There are many jobs where self-isolating means not working. Paying sick pay in this situation is clearly the right thing to do, and some businesses have already said that they will. But the law is unclear, leaving some workers unsure if following public health guidance risks not being paid.

On support for businesses:

“While businesses can help shield workers from the financial cost of coronavirus, there may be situations in the future where some come under extreme pressure and will need support from the Government, especially smaller firms. 

“If a situation develops where a large proportion of people are unable to work at the same time, repeatedly, or for a sustained period, that is a heavy burden to take on. If costs become too great, the Government can look at options for emergency relief measures for businesses and to support jobs.

“We are all in this together. Businesses, Government and public health authorities will need to work closely over the coming weeks to best protect and inform people.”

5 March

Air pollution UK-Client Earth taking Government back to court for the third time

From the Greener Jobs Alliance
  
The GJA welcomes the decision by Client Earth this week to take the Government back to court for the 3rd time over its failure to respond effectively to this public health emergency. LINK  
 
Unions need to add their voice to the call for action. The legal action was launched just after the release of yet more reports showing that pollution is at unlawful levels in most local authorities in the UK. The GJA calls for employers to take responsibility for the pollution generated by their business activities. There should be a legal duty contained in a new Clean Air Act making it a requirement on large employers to measure the emissions they are responsible for and draw up a clean air plan for their operations. This then needs effective enforcement. For example, construction companies are already under an obligation to show they are controlling pollution yet the lack of enforcement, often caused by staffing cuts, means illegal levels of particulate matter are contaminating workplaces and neighbourhoods alike.

The National Education Union NEU) has taken a lead by producing guidance this week in conjunction with the British Lung Foundation. LINK   

Unions can also put pressure on their local authorities to do more. For example this week Battersea and Wandsworth TUC issued a press release calling on the council to honour its policy commitment of ‘campaigning to national government towards a non-diesel economy’. This has been backed up by a huge citizen science campaign across the borough highlighting the illegal levels of pollution in Wandsworth.

Finally, the GJA is running a series of ‘Air Pollution as a trade union issue’ workshops across the regions. The first will be held in Manchester on Dec. 1st and the second one will be in Leeds on January, 26th, 2018 (contact gjacoms@gmail.com for details)

Illness and premature death will result from Government's ineffective Clean Air Strategy

From the Greener Jobs Alliance

Battersea and Wandsworth Trades Union Council (BWTUC) slammed the Government newly published plans to improve air quality as being totally ineffective and that they will utterly fail to remove dangerous pollutants from the air in Wandsworth.

The Government were forced to produce an Air Quality plan for consultation by the courts this month. They had tried to use the election as a reason to delay publication but this was rejected by the Court.

Graham Petersen, spokesperson for BWTUC, said,

If this document represents their vision of how the public will be protected from air pollution it is no surprise they wanted to keep it under wraps.

If this is how you respond to the Number 0ne public health hazard then the Conservative Party have lost all credibility on this important issue. Instead of providing clear leadership from central government, control measures have largely been delegated to local authorities. This wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t the same government that have stripped local government finances to the bone. A public health emergency that claims the lives of around 40,000 people every year requires a clear national direction.

People in Wandsworth are in the front-line of toxic air. We have the most polluted street in Europe – Putney High St. Levels in some parts of the borough show over 2 twice the legal limit of 40ug/m³ for nitrogen dioxide. In April, the Wandsworth Guardian quoted a report that showed 29 schools in the borough located in areas exceeding the safe legal limit.   Wandsworth Council’s own Air Quality Action Plan identified the importance of a campaign ‘to national government towards a non-diesel economy’ as a priority action. If they are serious about this then the Council should join us in condemning these inadequate proposals.

BWTUC believes that new statutory duties are required under a Clean Air Act that provides a national plan covering low emission zones, clean energy public transport provision, and duties on manufacturers and employers.

Currently businesses pay a fraction of what it costs the NHS to treat victims of toxic air. Yet it is employers that are the root cause of diesel emissions from their transport fleet as well as the individual work journeys to and from work made by their staff.

That is why BWTUC believe that air quality is a workplace issue. It is also why we provide funding for awareness raising initiatives like the Greener Jobs Alliance training modules on Air Quality which will be launched at the end of the month.

It is clearly now a political issue in this election. The Government have shown they have no effective strategy. This is not strong leadership, it is passing the buck, and relying on a voluntary approach that will not deliver on the scale required.

Would you like to sign Brent councillors' and educationalists' joint letter opposing the goverment's forced academies policy?

Having appealed on Wembley Matters LINK for Brent Council to take a stand on the government's policy on forcing all schools to become academies I welcomed Cllr Jun Bo Chan's initiative in organising a letter to the Guardian on the issue and readily agreed to sign.  The letter was published last week in the newspaper with, as is the custom, only the first signatories included. I publish the full list here so that readers can see which of their councillors supported the letter.

Since tihs article was published some people have indicated that they would have liked the opportunity to sign it. Please feel free to add your name/organisation as a comment.

We recognise, support and celebrate the hard work of students, parents, teachers and educational professionals in all schools. We therefore object to the government’s latest education for all bill, which aims to force all state schools in England to become academies, even those that are good or outstanding. The education secretary’s decision to back down last month from the imposition of blanket academisation represented a victory for campaigners from a wide array of organisations. Nevertheless, this was merely a tactical retreat, and the government’s reaffirmation of “a system where all schools are academies” highlights plainly their continued stubbornness and zealousness. Although the headlines conveyed a ‘U-turn’ on forced academisation, the education for all bill proposes that local authorities are now coerced one at a time rather than all at once.

The government’s top-down plans, which are predicated upon no clear evidence, are a blatant disregard for local autonomy. The undermining of local government oversight of education, the demand that all new academies be subsumed into multi-academy trusts, as well as the forcing of good and outstanding schools to become academies, constitute a centralising tendency which is wholly unnecessary, unpopular and uncalled for. The only certainty is that such actions severely weaken the government’s ostensible localism, continuing a troubling trend towards centralisation in the government’s overall legislative programme.

Moreover, we are concerned that other government proposals as outlined in its earlier educational excellence everywhere white paper, such as the abolition of the national system for teachers’ pay and conditions, the scrapping of the requirement for elected parent governors, and the removal of qualified teacher status, will only impede the urgent business of improving our schools. Popular pressure compelled the government to retreat last month. We will therefore continue to work alongside parents, teachers and other educational professionals, non-teaching staff, politicians, trade unions, governing bodies and other organisations to oppose the plans as outlined in the education for all bill thus far, and work towards persuading the government to channel its energies towards properly addressing the more pressing issues affecting state education: teacher shortage and retention; chaos and confusion in the assessment system; and cuts to education funding.

Cllr Jun Bo Chan Brent, teacher
Dawn Butler MP Brent Central
Melissa Benn Author and journalist
Tulip Siddiq MP Hampstead and Kilburn
Mary Glindon MP North Tyneside
Ian Mearns MP Gateshead
Kevin Courtney Acting general secretary, NUT
Hank Roberts Secretary of Brent Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) and past national president of ATL
Lesley Gouldbourne Secretary of Brent NUT
Shyam Gorsia Secretary of Brent NASUWT
Andrew Baisley Secretary of Camden NUT
Cllr Nick Forbes Newcastle City, Leader of Newcastle city council and Leader of LGA Labour group
Cllr Margaret McLennan Brent, Deputy leader at Brent council
Cllr Mikey Pavey Brent, Lead member for stronger communities at Brent council, and Director of Labour Friends of Sure Start
Cllr Matt Bradley Brent, teacher
Colin Adams Retired teacher
Cllr Shama Tatler Brent, teacher
Cllr Pat Harrison Brent, retired teacher
John Bolt General secretary of the Socialist Educational Association
Prof Tim Brighouse Honorary Norham fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford
Prof Stephen Ball Distinguished service professor of sociology of education at the UCL Institute of Education
Dr Martin Dewey Senior lecturer at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Prof Ben Rampton Professor of applied and sociolinguistics at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Dr Alan Fortune Retired senior lecturer at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Dr Nick Andon Lecturer at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Dr Melanie Cooke Teaching fellow at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London, and executive committee member of King’s College London UCU
Dr Ursula Wingate Senior lecturer at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Dr Roxy Harris Visiting senior research fellow at the department of education and professional studies, King’s College London
Prof Diane Reay Professor of education at the faculty of education, University of Cambridge
Prof Keith Taber Professor of science education at the faculty of education, University of Cambridge
Dr Michael Evans Reader in education at the at the faculty of education, University of Cambridge
Dr Christine Doddington University senior lecturer at the faculty of education, University of Cambridge
Dr George Anderson Retired lecturer at the school of physics and astronomy, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Karen Forbes Teacher and researcher
Dr Henry Tam Director of Question the Powerful
Dr Michael Calderbank Co-editor of Red Pepper and Co-convener of Brent Momentum
Sam Sampson Teacher
Mike Phipps Lecturer
Caroline Hill Teacher and Chair of Young Labour
Adam Klug Teacher and National organiser of Momentum
Emma Rees Teacher and National organiser of Momentum
Faduma Hassan Teacher and National committee member of Momentum
Ben Ackland Teacher
Kenichi Udagawa Teacher
Bob Sellers School technician
Jeremy Silk Teacher and NUT representative
Eddie Crust Teacher
Robert Young Teacher
Andrew Duncan Teacher
David Lee Teacher
David Dixon Teacher
Robert Pepper Teacher
Samia El-Ali Teacher
Vivien Sproule Retired teacher
Martin Francis Retired headteacher and governor
Anne Perez Retired teacher
Sarah Sharkey Retired teacher
Karin Barrett Retired teacher
Dr Jayne Lim Geriatric registrar and executive committee member of Chinese for Labour
Dr Tom Dolphin Consultant anaesthetist
Ria Bernard Speech and language therapist, and Vice-chair of the Young Fabians
Dr Martin Edobor Junior doctor and Chair of the Young Fabians
Dr Harriet Nerva Junior doctor
Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray Lead member for children and young people
Cllr Ruth Moher Brent, Former lead member for children and young people at Brent council
Mary Arnold Former lead member for children and families at Brent council, and school governing board chair
David Lister Chair of the Brent Labour local campaign forum and retired teacher
Cllr Matt Kelcher Brent
Cllr Sam Stopp Brent, Chair of the Labour campaign to end homelessness
Cllr Tom Miller Brent, Hendon GMB political officer and founding member of Open Labour
Cllr James Denselow Brent, Former lead member for stronger communities at Brent council
Cllr Eleanor Southwood Brent, Lead member for environment at Brent council
Cllr Lesley Jones Brent Former mayor of Brent and retired teacher
Cllr Kana Naheerathan Brent, former mayor of Brent
Cllr Sandra Kabir Brent
Cllr Neil Nerva Brent
Cllr Roxanne Mashari Brent Lead member for regeneration, growth, employment and skills at Brent council
Cllr Krupesh Hirani Brent, Lead member for community wellbeing at Brent council
Cllr Harbi Farah Brent, Lead member for housing at Brent council
Cllr Mary Daly Brent
Cllr Amer Agha Brent
Cllr Keith Perrin Brent
Cllr John Duffy Brent
Cllr Jean Hossain Brent
Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi Brent
Cllr Liz Dixon Brent
Cllr George Crane Brent
Cllr Janice Long Brent
Cllr Bernard Collier Brent
Cllr George Crane Brent
Cllr Arshad Mahmood Brent
Cllr Sarah Marquis Brent
Cllr Barbara Pitruzzella Brent
Cllr Aslam Choudry Brent
Cllr Lloyd Duddridge Redbridge
Cllr Naomi Fearon Fleetwood, teacher

 

Marching Backwards: Putting the pressure on the government to act on climate change

100k petition against forced academisation wins consideration for parliamentary debate

From Anti Academies Alliance

The public have spoken – they want an inquiry into academies!

The Anti-Academies Alliance is delighted that our petition for a public inquiry and referendum into academies has raced to hit 100,000 signatures in under four days.

The speed with which the public have reacted shows that they understand just how damaging and dangerous the government’s latest education white paper is.

The ironically titled ‘Education Excellence Everywhere’ will force all schools to become academies, cut the need for consultation, get rid of parent governors on school governing bodies, and remove the need for qualified teachers in school. This is the complete dismantling of state education. It is a scorched earth proposal.

We fully expect the government to hold the inquiry that the public have demanded. If they do not we will work with parents, students, unions and academics to build our own. If academies are the educational panacea that the government claim they can have nothing to fear from a full and forensic examination of the evidence.

Jenny Jones refuses to support the GLA report on Prevent: 'Prevent is failing to reach the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach'

Jenny Jones, Green London Assembly Member, has decided not to support the GLA Police and Crime Committee report on Prevent. This is an unusual move but indicates the seriousness of the issue.

The full report plus Jenny's statement is available HERE

I am concerned that no upfront definition of what is meant by extremism is made for the purposes of the report. However, I recognise that, along with the Government's definition of 'radicalisation', these are very contested words and not all Members of the Committee would be able to agree a common definition. Flexibility is obviously required when professionals seek to define what is and isn't 'extremism', just as flexibility is required when debating what is 'Britishness', and the interpretation will often vary according to local circumstances. But there are obvious dangers to this. For example, the Met Police have previously included at least one member of the London Assembly and several journalists in their database of 'domestic extremists'. This shows how words such as 'extremism' can be interpreted in a surprisingly broad brush way.

I am also unhappy that while the report references the concerns raised about the Government's focus on non-violent extremism, this is not reflected in the recommendations. There is academic evidence that the 'conveyor belt' idea, which underpins the Government's new approach to Prevent, is not a valid one. These academics argue that violent terrorists do not grow out of a culture of non-violent extremist ideas. If these academics are right, then I believe there are three ways in which Prevent could be counter-productive. First, it could alienate people who have 'extremist' ideas but would be potential allies in the fight against violent extremism. Second, it may hinder the development of the counter-narrative in classrooms and colleges as communities withdraw from discussions in those controlled spaces. Finally, I believe the larger the number of people being monitored as 'extremists', the thinner the spread of Met Police resources becomes. I believe there should be consultation about whether the emphasis in Prevent on linking violent and non-violent extremism is having a detrimental effect on the work of those trying to engage in their communities and develop a counter-narrative.

I am concerned that the recommendations in the report avoid questioning the Prevent Strategy adopted by the Government. I believe the most significant barriers which the professionals and organisations are facing all stem from the way Prevent is being framed. If we believe that counter terrorism increasingly relies on information gathered from communities, and less on intelligence services at home and abroad, then we need to radically overhaul programmes like 'Prevent'. If decent, law-abiding people view these programmes as counter-productive and we wish Prevent to be more successful on the ground, then it needs to address any fundamental problems in its approach which are creating barriers to implementation. Prevent is failing to win the hearts and minds of many people it needs to reach.

For these reasons I am unable to support this report.

Corbyn and Council Cuts: Time for a united resistance?

Local councils are currently drawing up their budgets for 2016-17 with the accompanying cuts to accommodate the cuts in local government funding. Council leaders across the political spectrum have warned that these are cuts too far and will have a devastating impact on core services.

The budgets are often part of a 3 or 4 year plan started a year or two ago. Labour councils (and the defeated Green minority council in Brighton) have used the 'dented shield' argument that only they can make the chocies that will preserve vital services.  This looks increasingly weak as the cuts accumulate and the poor are hit.

Since those cuts were projected in budgets the political situation has changed. On the one hand the Tories are back in power but on the other hand Jeremy Corbyn has won the leadership on an anti-austerity ticket with a surge of support, often from local activists involved in housing, NHS and cuts campaigns.

The run up to local and the London Mayoral and GLA elections will be accompanied by local press stories on the council cuts and their impact on vulnerable adult care, children's social services, provision for children with special education needs, local libraries and youth provision.

Labour will be in the contradictory position of having an anti-austerity national Labour leadership and a local leadership that is implementing the government's anti-austerity measures.

There has been a silence from the new Labour shadow cabinet on this so far but the call for resistance and a strong campaign based on local activists and public sector unions that was made under the last Labour leadership by the left must surely be repeated with added urgency now?

I have raised this issue in Green Party circles with a varied response. Some have shrugged and said, 'What else can local councils do?' and suggested we concentrate on the source of the cuts - the Tories and their ideology - emphasising that there is no need for the cuts but it is a choice that the Conservatives have made: Councils have no choice. This leaves us with divisive debates about exactly where the cuts will fall.

Others see the Corbyn phenomenon and the various broad alliances proposed (Momentum, Red Pepper circles etc) as well as the People's Assembly and trade unions as an opportunity to build a massive resistance.

What advice will Corbyn give local coucils?

I publish below a response I received about this from a Green Party activist:

I agree that we have to draw attention to the inconsistency between having an "anti-austerity" policy position, whilst being forced to implement austerity cuts locally, which are once again directed at the most vulnerable, in a deliberately discriminatory and disproportionate manner.

e.g. Disability groups have been calling for a 'Cumulative Impact Assessment' (CIA) to asess what the cumulative effects are, of 'multiple cuts' to different services and benefits, on those who (being the most vulnerable) rely on a range of different benefits and services. There are assessments of each individual cut, but no asessment of those who are subjected to multiple cuts over time. This has been requested repeatedly for several years now, and the Government/DWP still refuses to do it. Meanwhile, there has been a rise in the death-toll of vulnerable people, and those people deserve not to die unacknowledged, while their 'deaths' were a deliberate 'colateral-damage' decision, which was made by Tory 'policy-makers'.

"The United Nations is carrying out an unprecedented inquiry into “systematic and grave violations” of disabled people’s human rights by the UK government"
http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/confirmed-un-is-investigating-uks-grave-violations-of-disabled-peoples-rights/

We need to be behind this move by the UN and seen to be showing solidarity with anti-austerity disabled rights groups around the country, who have been on the receiving end of these deliberately 'Targeted' cuts for 5 years already. Cuts which have potentially contributed to thousands of deaths.

Either Labour are going to be an opposition thorn in this sociopathic government's side, or they are going to continue with the Neoliberal narrative that 'economics' makes it all inevitable because... money, family purse, budget... mixing macro-economics with family economics like the Tories always do, and confusing people's perceptions of how 'money/debt' is created (while the Tories have doubled the 'debt' and handed the 'money' to their old-school corporate chums). The Green Party has a new and important policy around money-creation, and this is also a big opportunity for Greens to push that & to explain it to the public, so as to dispell the 40 year old Thatcherite meme of a family purse budget.

A Green New Deal is beneficial socially, economically and environmentally. It ticks all the boxes as the alternative to 'austerity'. A nation-wide renewable energy and energy efficiency programme (managed at the 'Local' level), coupled to electrification of transport (which would require offshore wind wave tidal development), would be a massive (but increasingly urgent) undertaking, which would both improve 'quality-of-life' for people locally, as well as mitigate some of the damage we're doing to the environment. Voters need to know that the Tory government are letting Britain be left behind in the new global renewable energy industry, which has massive social & economic benefits if encouraged to prosper.

One of Thatcher's biggest crimes, was not investing North Sea oil tax revenues in the renewable energy technologies which were available at the time, like on/offshore wind power, and solar water heaters & insulation for homes etc etc. The 'jobs' thus created could have replaced the coal jobs lost, instead of throwing tens of thousands into unemployment, with no new jobs to go to. Those new sustainable jobs are still screaming out to be created. Austerity is a lie. It is the diversion of Public money into Private offshore accounts without the 'societal' benefits that should come from creating that money.

But let's not forget there are powerful neoliberal forces in Labour still. The first Bail-Out was under Brown and that alone was enough to pay off every single mortgage in the UK at the time. Those people haven't just gone away because Corbyn became 'Leader' and there hasn't been a huge shift in policy position by the Parliamentary Labour Party as far as I can tell - so far.

Earl Bramley-Howard
West Mendip Green Party

Resisting the Trade Union Bill Meeting Tomorrow

Greens condemn Government's contempt for democracy and accountability in education

Samantha Pancheri, Green Party Schools spokesperson has challenged the thinking behind the Government's Education and Adoption Bill whioch was published today.

She said:

It should not come as a surprise that the Conservatives have stepped up their backdoor privatisation of schools by announcing a new Bill that would see schools deemed as ‘failing’ forced into converting to academies.

Once again, the wishes of school staff, pupils, and parents are being robustly ignored by Nicky Morgan, in spite of multiple high profile campaigns against forced academisation, and a profound lack of evidence that conversion to academy status actually improves educational outcomes.

Alarmingly, the bill also includes a measure to scrap the requirement for academy sponsors to consult with school communities, demonstrating nothing short of contempt for democracy and local accountability, while the government dismisses anti-academy campaigns as hindrances.

There is simply no place for business interests in our schools. Education must be protected from being encroached upon by profit motives, and to have schools sponsored by the likes of BAE Systems is a disgrace.

If the Conservatives truly wish to improve educational outcomes for children and young people, they must move away from the rigid and impractical categorisation of schools by Ofsted, and instead look holistically at the environment and opportunities provided in schools. Teachers and unions have highlighted the impact of high workload and stress on their ability to meet pupils’ needs, and also that excessive testing of pupils is damaging their learning experience.

There are many positive improvements that could be made to the school system by reducing teachers’ workload, scaling back overregulation, scrapping unnecessary standardised testing and, above all, investing in schools to enable them to provide the staff and resources that pupils need and deserve in order to realise their potential.

This proposed bill will achieve nothing in that respect, and is nothing more than another step in introducing marketisation, and removing local democratic accountability from our schools.