Helga Gladbaum pays tribute to Tayo Oladapo

Helga Gladbaum has asked me to publish this Guest Blog

 

Tribute to the late Cllr. Tayo Oladapo

I am dismayed that the late Councillor Tayo Oladapo, representing the Labour Party in Kilburn ward for six years and who died at an early age at the end of January of this year has still not been given a decent burial nor a mention in any local publication.

I therefore would like to give my own tribute to Tayo. He was elected to be a Labour councillor in 2010 and he was one of much younger councillors at the time.

Tayo was a member of the Education Scrutiny committee which I chaired for a number of years. He always attended the meetings of that committee and would walk over to me at the end of the meetings to talk about education and other matters. He was very respectful and I had great hopes that he would eventually make an important contribution to the work of the Council.

I remember a number of Brent councillors passing away over the years, notably Cllr. Paul Daisley, leader of Brent Council and MP for Brent Central, Cllr. Reg Freeson, MP for Brent Central for many years and Cllr. Tom Taylor, chair of education for a number of years and leader of the Conservative group. They and others were always honoured for their contribution to the political life of Brent.

I fail to understand why these long-standing traditions have been broken in the case of the late Cllr. Tayo Oladapo. I will remember you, Tayo.

Helga Gladbaum

Councillor for Harlesden ward 2010 to 2014

Concerns remain over leafleting after Scrutiny discussion

Although Labour councillor members of the Call In, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, clearly saw their role last night as to support the Executive and the officers, rather than scrutinise, members of the public did try and hold the Council to account with the able assistance of Cllr Alison Hopkins. At either end of the experience spectrum neither Cllr Joyce Bacchus nor Cllr Krupa Sheth spoke.

Pete Firmin speaking for Brent Trades Union Council and Brent Fightback, and a member of the Labour Party, spoke about the lack of clarity in the leaflet licensing document. He said it left lots of grey areas in terms of  exemptions based on 'political purposes' and gave the example of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group leafleting claimants outside the Kilburn Job Centre about their rights Was that a political purpose? .  He argued that if the scheme was aimed at commercial interests that this would leave small businesses discriminated against. He said that they key question was, 'Who decides whether a leaflet meets the criterion set out in the report?'  He said that here was no evidence from the council that littering caused by leaflets was a problem - in his experience fast food packaging was much more of a problem. He concluded by stating that only 27% of local authorities had introduced such a scheme, the legislation was enabling rather than compulsory and so Brent Council did not have to implement it, and urged the council to abandon the proposals.

Speaking as a local resident, Secretary of Brent Green Party and a committee member of the Brent Campaign Against Climate Change, Pete Murry asked that the council to entirely reconsider the necessity for charges for leaflet distribution. He said he doubted that the intention of Brent Council was to restrict freedoms of speech, information and discussion in the borough when it would be under the international Olympic spotlight. However he feared that this could be the case

He said:

I have regularly leafleted in Brent on Party political issues during elections, but also at other times on other issues such as pollution from Waste incineration, the dangers of nuclear waste being transported through the borough and to promote events such as public meetings about Climate Change. Such issues are not always well covered in the media and often people can only be made aware of their possible local impact through leafleting. None of the organisations that I have campaigned for are financially wealthy or represent profit making commercial concerns. Leafleting is often the only way for minorities and minority causes to be brought to public attention. The current proposed charges would place even this method of communication beyond the financial means of some groups, especially groups of unemployed people whose limited income would make leafleting charges unpayable.

Murry also drew attention to the ambiguities  around definitions and concluded that there were surely better ways keeping the borough clean and tidy other than restricting citizens' freedoms.

Alison Hopkins asked about a non-party political campaign such as the Brent Coalition for a Sustainable Brent Cross Development leafleting over incinerators and whether that would be exempted. She pointed out that the lack of clarity meant that officers or the council would be making decisions about exemptions and that this may be okay for now in terms of free speech, but officers and councils change and we have to think of the future. Unwritten laws were dangerous so there needed to be detail and clarity based on real cases.

In an intervention that lacked the usual sarcasm and side swipes, Helga Gladbaum said she was relieved that the original focus on the Olympics had changed. She said the council needed to sharpen up enforcement of the rules and asked what was meant by the phrase 'harm to the community's interests'. (This latter phrase was used to illustrate when officers thought they would intervene in the leafleting process'.

Cllr Powney, who seems to be in charge of everything contentious, said that rules on leafleting had been in force since 1994 and that the new proposals represented a liberalisation. For example, the previous rules had exempted 'political parties' not 'political purposes'. He suggested that the wording in the supplementary report was 'not particularly illuminating' unless you are a lawyer. He said the proposals were not lime limited but the Olympics may result in a slightly great amount of leafleting. He said it would be difficult to define all possible cases in advance and it was better to focus on the principles behind enforcement. He said that enforcement has not been a problem in the past.

There followed some detailed officer contributions with assurances from Michael Read that in 18 years Brent Council had never used their powers to stop leafleting for political purposes. He said that there had been no prosecutions since 2006 using the existing powers but there were about 20 seizures of leaflets a year. He said that the council's enforcement record should reassure the public. Leafleting was only an issue if it did real harm, people carrying it out were creating a nuisance (thrusting leaflets at the public on narrow pavements), big corporations carrying out mass leafleting, or leaflets being left unattended or being thrown away on the street.  David Thrales gave examples of nuisance caused by leaflets about new shops opening, mobile cards, buying of gold and pawnbrokers  and these along with examples from Yogini Patel about leafleting by a big betting ship all seemed to focus on Wembley High Road, rather than the other streets designated in the report. She thought that leafleting encouraging gambling did harm. Patel said it was leafleting every day of the week by small businesses that caused the real nuisance and also gave the example of the Cup Final when Liverpool fans distributed 'Don't Buy the Sun' leaflets that were left all over Wembley High Road.

Officers favoured on the spot fines rather than the expense of going to court and also drew attention to problems about seizures where legally the council had to find the original owners and return them. They said that giving a warning or moving people on usually worked and it emerged that Brent Council has only four officers to enforce the rules.

As the discussion progress it seemed to me that the emphasis had changed from discussion about definitions of exempted activities and the dangers inherent in that to the concept of 'harm to the community' or 'nuisance'  which I saw as equally dangerous. David Thrales at one point said that hs own interpretation was that leaflets that broadly wanted to ;'progress the community' were ones that would be approved. That seems to me to be a minefield. Could a pro-academy conversion headteacher complain to enforcement officers that anti-academy campaigners leafleting parents outside her school were 'creating a nuisance' or 'doing harm to the community'?

Winding up Cllr Paul Lorber said that the discussion had justified the Call In showing how confusing the whole issue was. If councillors were confused, what about the public? He asked why,  if the key issue was littering,  was the licensing scheme and fees necessary?  Could the council implement enforcement over nuisance without fees etc? If the target was commercial leafleting then shouldn't that be stated? He said that small business should not be discriminated against by exorbitant fees. Alison Hopkins suggested a sliding scale and Cllr Powney said he would seek advice on whether that would be legal and put it into the consultation if it was.

The Lib Dem Call-in motion was then voted down.

The Consultation will take place from the 22nd May, advertised in the press on 24th May and the results made public on the 14th June. Officers would make the decisions based on the consultation and the new powers would come into effect on July 2nd in time for the Olympics.

Helga the revanchist ignores regime change

There are few checks and balances on the power of the Brent Council Executive and under Ann John's leadership they worked hard at down-grading even those that do exist.

One of the these is the Call In, Overview and Scrutiny Committee the role of which is described thus on the Council's website:

Scrutiny is the mechanism by which the Executive is held publicly to account.  Together, the scrutiny and overview functions have the capacity to give non- Executive Members a significant opportunity to influence the proposals of the Executive and to probe into the impact of policy decisions on the Borough.  The Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee meets as and when required to consider any matter “called in”, in accordance with Standing Orders and to make recommendations thereon.

Out of the last 12 committee meetings timetabled only  three have actually been held  Yesterday the committee met to discuss the Call In of the Executive's proposals to license leafleting in the borough.

Cllr Helga Gladbaum on her way into the meeting nonchalantly told demonstrators outside the Town Hall that she was going to vote for the Executive proposal  before she had heard any of the representations. Throughout the meeting she heckled other speakers shaking her head, laughing and say 'nonsense' when Cllr Alison Hopkins was asking if a campaign against incinerators, which was non-political, would be exempted from the regulations.  Gladbaum dismissed the Call In as a Lib Dem attempt to embarrass the Executive - which is of course a heinous crime when directed at as  fine a body of intelligent, diligent and august  men and women as you could find anywhere on the planet. They are as  we should all know by now,  always right. Clearly Cllr Helga Gladbaum believes there is no need to scrutinise their decisions at all and Scrutiny is just a waste of her time

But wait - wasn't this the first meeting of the new regime under the new caring leadership of Muhammed Butt, 'Brent with a human face', a leader who according to Muhammed's BNCTV interview wishes to:

....engage with our councillors, especially between the front bench and the back benchers - get them involved in the decision making process so everyone has an input and also I want to have more engagement with out residents and the electorate, listen to them rather than just sort of blindly defending our decisions.

Helga as a member of the old guard clearly hasn't got the message. Shafique Choudhary the new Chief Whip was in the public seats: perhaps he should have a word.

Festival cuts go ahead amidst confusion over equalities legislation

There appeared to be some confusion from Labour councillors members last night when discussing the cuts in funding of faith events at Scrutiny Committee.  At first Cllr Lesley Jones said it had been a financial decision  and that the Equalities Act, previously cited as the reason for stopping funding of religious festivals, did not require the cessation of funding. The required Equalities Impact Assessment had been done after the initial report and further additional responsibilities had been published in April of this year. She said that some respondents in the Consultation had  said the festival grants were divisive.Under questioning she later said that both the equalities legislation and financial issues were prime factors in making the decision. Cllr Powney said that this was an Act of Parliament and not a matter of choice. He said that the Council could not decide to ignore it because of what people said during consultation: "Someone will need to explain why funding different religious groups at different rates is not discriminatory."

Addressing the public gallery, overwhelmingly consisting of Hindus concerned about the ending of the Navratri grant, Cllr Helga Gladbaum  reminded them of the support given by Brent Council when East African Asians fled Kenya and Uganda and came to settle in Brent. She said that the Council had funded a highly qualified Language Team that had helped children as they settled into Brent schools and the outcome was that our schools are now full of highly achieving children. She told them that times had changed and the Council could no longer afford the Navratri grants: "You are a proud people and are well able to organise events without holding out your hands for money. The money is needed for the elderly and for disabled children."

Liberal Democrat leader, Paul Lorber, who had called in the Executive decision, said that all Brent councillors were aware of the kind of comments they got on these issues and they shouldn't take these few comments into account while ignoring the wider number supporting the festivals. The negative comments were from an underlying 'element' that all councillors know about 'and we wouldn't tolerate racist comments'. He asked about the wider implications of the legislation for the work of Brent Council and whether any other areas were 'at risk' from the legislation. He gave the example of Stonebridge councillors who had financed Jamaica Day from ward working funds and Black History Month.

The Borough Solicitor, Fiona Edden, said that the Council had to pay 'due regard' regard to the legislation and the impact of decisions on 'protected groups' (1) . in consultation some groups had the perception that they were not being provided for. She said that if looked at historically this could be claimed to be the case. She said that the legislation (2)  was new and case law on it was still being developed and the law interpreted. It was clear that the libraries case was casting a long shadow over her comments.

Cllr Jones said that the fact that Navratri gets far more money than other, more modestly funded groups, could be seen as divisive. It was nobody's fault but a problem that had developed over the years. She defended spending on a team to promote corporate events, and extolled the virtues of one massive community 'Brent Celebrates' event. (3)

A speaker from the Hindu Council had earlier told the Committee that Brent was renowned all over London for its Navratri celebrations which was the biggest and best in the UK with thousands attending from the different communities. He said that cessation of funding would cause a loss of respect and goodwill and end the positive community engagement involved. He said the the Hindu Council would like to work with the Council on how to deal with the equalities legislation.

Lorber's motion asking the Executive to look again at their decision and its impact on a large section of the community. He called for the money being used for a special Events Unit to be distributed instead to community groups in line with the equalities legislation. He said that such community groups would be better at putting on events than the Council. His motion was lost.

1. Protected  characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.
2. Extract from the Equality and Human Rights Commission website:

With major reductions in public spending, organisations in Great Britain are being required to make difficult financial decisions. The equality duty requires public authorities to demonstrate that they are making financial decisions in a fair, transparent and accountable way, considering the needs and the rights of different members of their community. This is achieved through assessing the impact that changes to policies and practices could have on different protected groups.
The duty does not prevent public authorities from making difficult decisions such as reorganisations and relocations, redundancies, and service reductions, nor does it stop public authorities from making decisions which may impact on one group more than another group.
Assessing the impact on equality of proposed changes to policies, procedures and practices is not just something the law requires, it is a positive opportunity for public authorities to ensure they make better decisions based on robust evidence. The assessment does not necessarily have to take the form of a document called an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) but you can choose to do so if it is helpful. It will help you to demonstrate compliance if you:

• Ensure you have a written record of the equality considerations you have taken into account
• Ensure that your decision-making includes a consideration of the actions that would help to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts on particular protected groups.
• make your decisions based on evidence
• make your decision-making process more transparent

The equality duty is a legal obligation which should remain a top priority for public authorities, even in times of economic difficulty. Failure to meet the equality duty may result in public authorities being exposed to costly, time-consuming and reputation-damaging legal challenges.

3. Such events can be fraught with difficulty as it is often difficult to untangle cultural and religious strands and there is a danger of the format not respecting aspects of some cultures. It is probably an urban myth but at the extreme end is the story of the Japanese store that celebrated Christmas with a huge model of Santa on a cross. I worked for a primary headteacher a long while ago who was determined to have a 'multicultural Christmas' and was miffed when, at the height of the cultural revolution, the Chinese Embassy gave a shirty reply to her request for information on how the Chinese celebrated Christ's birth!

Brent officers and councillors warn against fragmentation of education service

Gareth Daniel, Brent Council's Chief Executive warned against fragmentation of the education service when he spoke at the Brent Governors' Conference today. In a reference to academies and free school he said that it was crucial to keep Brent's 'family of schools' together and that it was important for schools to keep sight of the 'bigger picture'. He emphasised the importance of partnership work and said 'we must remember what unites us'.  He stressed the vital  role of the local authority when things go wrong in individual schools He said that his attitude was one of general pragmatism and 'to be blunt we have to follow the money' rather than take an ideological stance. However he said that local politicians were not comfortable with free schools and that he was not comfortable with them himself.

Krutika Pau, Director of Children and Families,  urged governors to keep their eyes on the long-term and reflect on the permanent damage that would be caused by a fragmented school system. She said that we must face current difficulties in a rational and principled way.

Cllr Mary Arnold, lead member for Children and Families also stressed the importance of the 'family of schools' and the responsibility to the wider community of terms of special educational needs provision, looked after children and child protection. Links between schools and through the local authority were important in terms of collective provision and so that the most vulnerable could be reached.  She also drew attention to the recently revealed errors in the funding of academies with excessive amounts being diverted from the local authority. 'Top slicing' had cost Brent £1m.

All three also addressed the shortage of primary places and said that they were lobbying with other London local authorities for additional funding to provide places. Gareth Daniel warned that some local authorities would not be able to meet their statutory responsibilities.  Krutika Pau said that the shortage of places kept her awake at night and drew attention to the current consultation (see my BLOG). She cited a 10% increased in reception applications for next year and said she wanted 'excellent provision rather than just a range of bulge classes'. 

The context of government cuts and their impact on the council was a central theme with Children and Families accounting for  £14m of Brent's total of £42m cuts. .Krutika Pau outlined steps that had been taken in terms of amalgamation of departments, reducing management layers and reducing the ratio of managers to workers, On the services that schools buy-in she said that the services would be refined next year and that they would employ a 'full cost recovery method' next year. (I interpret this as meaning that there will be an increase in costs to schools). She warned that in terms of budgets, schools would experience in the near future what that authority has had to endure this year: 'schools will have to make every penny count'.   Gareth Daniel said support services had to provide 'value for money' but those provided by Brent would not necessarily be the cheapest. He said in a free market for such services schools 'wouldn't pay peanuts for monkeys'. He said the authority would be more selective in what it did but would do it well. Supporting a call for schools to be more open to other activities taking place there out of hours he said governors should make schools 'work for their living'.

Outlining the context Krutika said all this was happening while more than one third of Brent children were from low income families, over one quarter were on free school meals, three quarters were in social housing and one fifth in single income households. Social care referrals had increased by 25% and there had been in increase in the number of children with disabilities and the number requiring a special needs assessment.

After muted welcoming applause Sarah Teather gave a subdued speech in which she said the Coalition had two main objectives: raise standards and narrow the attainment gap.  She said they wanted more autonomy for schools but only with accountability but didn't specify how this fitted into academies and free school policy.  Se said that the government would provide guidance on the use of the pupil premium but that schools would be left to make their own decisions. Judgement on the effectiveness of the school's use of the money would be based on outcomes rather than requesting details of what it is spent on.

In a controversial part of the speech she talked about proposals to pare down the number of people on a government body. She said that a smaller body would be more dynamic and effective and that there were too many 'clingers on' who did not contribute. Such governing bodies 'would not be hindered' by having too many voices represented. In answer to a question she said that there would still be space for local authority representation but schools will be allowed to say that they do not want an LA representative but someone with different skills.  She doubted whether the quality of school improvement advisors across the country  justified their inclusion remarking that although some were good other local authority School Improvement Services were poor. She said that there had been an issue in Brent of school governing bodies not being strong enough  to challenge headteachers effectively. She said that the National College of School Leadership  was look at training chairs of governing bodies and giving them the skills to challenge. A key role of governing bodies was to focus on the progress of the most vulnerable children.

Teather was challenged on the early years by Cllr Helga Gladbaum who mentioned that Brent had been unable to open three of the 20 planned Children's Centres because of cuts. Sarah Teather replied that she would champion the early years in her ministerial role. In answer to a question on Coalition expenditure in Libya at a time of financial retrenchment Teather justified military intervention on humanitarian grounds.  Criticised for the Coalition's stance on Pupil Referral Units and challenged to visit Brent units,  she said that there across the country they 'are a very mixed bag - some are appalling'. The Coalition planned to make schools accountable for what happens to pupils after they are excluded.