Showing posts with label London Living Wage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London Living Wage. Show all posts

Saturday 10 November 2018

Wembley Ark students challenge the FA to pay the London Living Wage to 2,000 contract workers

Regular readers of the blog will know I am opposed to academisation of schools on principle. I see them as backdoor privatisation and undemocratic. However, credit where credit is due, I am impressed by the campaign by Wembley Ark Academy's student campaign on the London living Wage. This is from the school's website LINK:

Ark Academy students face FA over low pay at Wembley Stadium

Ark Academy students made national news on 8th November when they delivered a sack of 500 letters to the Football Association, calling for a pay rise for workers on low wages.


In a meeting at FA headquarters, students Zainab Ahmed and Hadeal Abdelatti pressed the FA to pay the London Living Wage of £10.50 an hour to cooks, cleaners and stewards employed by third-party contractors. They handed over a petition which Ark Academy students wrote in form time.

Channel 4 News interviewed the protesters. The Daily Telegraph said the 11- to 16-year-old protesters shamed the FA.


The FA agreed this year to raise hundreds of its own employees to the London Living Wage. But it stopped short of lifting 2,000 contract workers off the minimum wage.

Zainab told FA executive James MacDougall she visited classes to collect petitions. Numerous students told her their relatives work at the stadium on low pay.

MacDougall argued that the FA is a national organisation and therefore Brent-based activists have little say.

Hadeal struck back, saying people earning the minimum wage cannot afford the London cost of living. She said the FA has a historic opportunity to set an example among major employers.

MacDougall disclosed that 2,000 of the FA’s 6,000 workers live in Brent.

The students will meet again with the FA in January.

Sunday 18 June 2017

Brent Council champions the London Livng Wage by advertising jobs at £7.50 per hour while Political Assistant will earn £34,338 - £37,293

Brent Council has done a great deal of public relations work championing the London Living Wage so I was surprised last week to see the council tweeting a link to the above vacancy at 'up to' £7.50 per hour.

The Council's own Pay Policy statement LINK states:
 The council has implemented the London living wage. This rate has been applied to all staff who receive less than £9.75 per hour. Those whose substantive salary is below the London Living Wage are placed on the nearest spinal column point to ensure an equivalent rate to the London Living Wage. The London Living Wage will not apply to apprentices as they are paid in accordance with nationally defined training rates. The Council is an accredited London Living Wage Employer and asks its contractors supplying services to the Council to pay their staff the London Living Wage. As contractors are employers in their own right, the council cannot legally force contractors to pay the London Living Wage but has built into its procurement procedures a requirement to do so. The Council also encourages schools to pay the London Living Wage. This begs the question on why the Council is using its website and social media to advertise jobs at exploitative poverty wage rates when elsewhere it makes the case for the difference the London Living Wage makes to employees:


 Rather better paid is the post of Political Assistant to the Brent Labour Group currently advertised on the Jobs Go Public website  LINK although the job is only open to internal candidates currently employed by Brent Council or temporary agency workers currently working in the council. See the stern warning I have highlighted in red at the end of the advertisement.

The temporary post will cover the period leading up to the 2018 Council elections:

-->
Salary range: £34,338 - £37,293 p.a. inc.
Contract: Fixed term (Until 31/05/2018)

Hours of work: 36 hours per week

Location: Civic Centre and other locations from time to time
This is an exciting, high profile opportunity to work at the cutting edge of local government for an innovative local authority.
Brent is a tremendously vibrant London borough where the iconic arch of Wembley Stadium dominates the skyline. Spanning both inner and outer London, it is a borough of huge contrasts in terms of its economic, environmental, ethnic and social make up. Brent’s diversity is evident to all who visit our borough and our long history of ethnic and cultural diversity has created a place that is truly unique and valued by those who live and work here.
The council is pursuing a far-reaching transformation agenda that better meets the needs of our community so it is an exciting time to join us.

The Post

The Labour Group is looking for experience in working – paid or unpaid – in a political environment, a professional approach with the organisational skills to deal with shifting priorities. You will need to demonstrate your awareness of new legislation and political developments (local, regional and national) with particular reference to the Labour Party.

This post is politically restricted and will be offered in line with current legislation governing Political Assistant Posts. This is a temporary role to 31 May 2018.

As the Group’s Political Assistant you will be carrying out a range of interesting duties including:
·      undertaking political research in Council matters
·      assisting with the composition and issuing of press releases
·      attending Labour Group meetings to provide information and advice to Council Members
·      liaising with Members of Parliament and Officers of the Council

The Person

Ideally, you will be a member of the Labour Party and have:
·      research/administrative experience
·      experience of dealing with public bodies or political organisations
·      a good knowledge of Council political structure and public affairs
·      good interpersonal skills and organisational skills
·      good computer skills including word processing, spreadsheets, database and desk top publishing, and
·     the ability to work under pressure as part of a team as well as use your own initiative
We would like to hear from you.
Closing Date: 30 June 2017 (23:59)
Assessment & Interview Date: 12 July 2017

Additional Information
This position is only open to current employees of Brent Council or Temporary Agency Workers currently working in Brent Council. External candidates are not permitted to apply for internal only roles. Forwarding ‘internal only’ roles to external candidates may lead to disciplinary action being taken.



Monday 23 December 2013

Brent Council ignorant of how many of their contractors pay below London Living Wage or use Zero Hours contracts

Brent Council's commitment to paying the London Living Wage was very welcome but as pointed out in previous postings that is problematic because the Council has very few directly employed manual and service  workers now that so many of its services are contracted out. The same caveat applies to zero hours contracts, also opposed by the Council, but when some out-sourced Civic Centre security staff are employed on a zero hours basis.

The Council has urged local schools and private businesses to pay the London Living Wage and the new Public Realm contract includes a requirement that  Veolia  pay the LWW. The Council in a November press released stated:
We have also agreed to build LLW considerations into our procurement process for contracts and, over a three-year period, will review the bulk of contracts with a positive view to applying LLW.
Again this is welcome although the continued emphasis on 'best value' (often the lowest bid) introduces a tension at a time of massive funding cuts. There is increasing recognition that by lifting local wages the Council will eventually be better off as families are lifted out of poverty and thus less reliant on benefits, including Council Tax Support.

Given all this I was surprised to receive a negative response from Brent Council to my  Freedom of Information request asking for details of how many of the staff employed by the Council via contractors and sub-contractors are on zero hours contracts and paid less than the London Living Wage. After they refused the request I asked for a review and now have a response (below) - which amounts to another refusal .

What concerns me is that if the Council is concerned about the London Living Wage and poverty among Brent residents, it is surely their responsibility to ensure that those employed on their behalf have decent wages and conditions. In terms of budget planning it is also essential to know the cost of bringing those workers up to the LWW and that can only be done through  knowing how many people are involved.

If there is to be evidence based forward planning and decision making it is essential to have high quality information. I had a similar experience regarding school places when the Council refused my request for the number of pupils on Brent school waiting lists who were duplicates - i.e.the same child on waiting lists for several schools.Again essential information on assessing unmet demand and potential school expansions.

Here is the Council's ruling on my Zero Hours/London Living Wage request:
We have reviewed the decision to refuse your request for information under The Freedom of Information Act. Your request related to information that would establish how many staff who work for or on behalf of the Council through a contractor were employed on a zero hours basis and how many were paid the London Living Wage.

That request was refused as the information requested was not held by the Council. You were dissatisfied with that request on the basis that the Council had been critical of such arrangements and would not use a zero hours scheme with its own staff and had made a policy position that the London Living Wage should be paid to all Council staff as a minimum. We have now reviewed the decision to refuse the request and I can inform you of the outcome.
  

It is correct to say that the Council does not hold this information and as such can not readily supply it to you.  It may be possible to contact all of the contractors that the Council engages with but when the number of those contractors are considered and the time involved in obtaining the information you have requested is taken into account this would be a major exercise.
  

The Council would have to identify all current contracts on which staff are employed by the contractor which would, in effect, be nearly if not all of the contractors that are used. This in itself is an enormous piece of work. Once identified contact would have to be made with all of those contractors which would be hundreds of individual contacts. This again would be an enormous piece of work to accurately undertake. Collating the information would also take a significant amount of time.
  

Our view is that the time involved in obtaining the information would be in excess of 18 hours of officer time. Under the Act a request can be refused in the event that the cost of complying with it would exceed the cost limit set out in legislation. The applicable regulations provide that in assessing whether the cost limit has been reached officer time should be assessed at £25 per hour and the overall limit of cost being £450.

Given that the cost here would require in excess of 18 hours of officer time it is clearly over the cost limit set out in the Act. The Executive has taken the decision that any request that breaches the cost limit should be refused.
If the Council is to conduct a 3 year review as their November press release stated then this is precisely the information that will be needed.  Meanwhile, as residents, we have no way of knowing how many of the workers providing our services are on zero hours contracts with little or no pension or sick pay rights, or employed on rock bottom wages.

Friday 6 September 2013

Brent Council doesn't know how many contracted out workers are on 'zero hours' contracts

With so many services out-sourced by Brent Council the issue of their workers' conditions of employment  is of major interest to council tax payers. Following a conversation with a Civic Centre security guard, who revealed that he was on a zero hours contract, I put a Freedom of Information request to the Council asking how many workers of organisations supplying out-sourced services to Brent Council were on such contracts.

Brent Labour councillors have voiced concerns about such contracts and the administration is committed to the London Living Wage. However, this means little if procurement procedures do not ensure that out-sourced workers enjoy proper contracts with sick pay, holiday pay and pension entitlement and at the LLW or above.

The Council, under immense financial pressure, can distance itself from poor employment conditions, by handing responsibility over to the private companies involved. However, if they have been pursuing best financial value as the main criterion for awarding contracts, they collude in insecure employment and low wages.

This is Brent Council's response to my Freedom of Information request  LINK  for information on  the number of Council employees and contractors supplying Council services on zero hours contracts:
Brent does not have employees on zero hour contracts but does utilise the
services of casual workers for specific activities.

We do not hold information on employment statuses within contracted
organisations.
My follow up request states:
I am afraid that this reply is not satisfactory. As the Council has been critical of 'zero hours' contracts and is committed to the London Living Wage I feel it is incumbent on the Council to ensure that workers in contracted organisations providing council services, enjoy the conditions that the Council advocates.

I therefore request that Brent Council follows up this request by ascertaining from contracted organisations:
1. The number and proportion of workers supplying Brent services paid the London Living Wage or higher.
2. The number and proportion of workers supplying Brent services on zero hours or casual contracts.

Wednesday 16 January 2013

Some questions I asked Brent Council at Wembley Connects last night

SOAPBOX QUESTIONS (Answers to be given at the next session)

1, With mattresses discarded on the street and increased fly-tipping as a consequence of short-term rental accommodation changing hands frequently, will the council consider producing leaflets on recycling and bulk collections (in appropriate languages) and require that landlords and letting agents give them to new tenants?

2. Can the Council give us an assessment of the impact on the Wembley Park area of an increase in school pupil numbers as a result of the Michaela Free School likely to move into Arena House (the ex-CNWL building) opposite Wembley Park station, an independent 1,500 place French School opening in  Brent Town Hall and Ark Academy numbers due to increase over the next few years as the school reaches full capacity? (Not to mention Preston Manor All-Through School just down the road.)

3. When are we likely to see the affordable family housing promised for the Quintain development in the Wembley Regeneration around Wembley Stadium? With 15,000 on the housing waiting list this is urgently needed. (Quintain is currently building a Designer Shopping Outlet, multi-screen cinema and private student accommodation)

4. Now that the Wembley Stadium car park is moving to the land  around the 'Green, public transport based' Civic Centre giving 1,350 parking places, will there be a parking charge for council workers, coucillors and visitors to the Civic Centre and the Library.

QUESTION TO CLLR KRUPESH HIRANI AFTER PRESENTATION ON ADULT SOCIAL CARE

1. Isn't there a tension between your statement that you will make saving on adult social care costs by 'squeezing providers' rather than change  eligibility criteriam and the Council's commitment to the London Living Wage?  Squeezed providers will save money by paying lower wages and thus reduce the quality of the service.

A. Cllr Hirani said that the London Living Wage Foundation has recognised the difficulties that councils had in paying the LLW to care workers - the cost would be millions. London boroughs were working with the Foundation to plan how to deal with the issue. He said some savings could be made by joint procurement with other boroughs.








Sunday 13 January 2013

Preview of decisions to be made at Brent Council Executive on Monday

Monday's Meeting of the Brent Council Executive will be making some important decisions. Here is a preview of some of the post important ones:

Delegation of awarding of 'Supporting People Contracts' to achieve 'savings'
Re-procurement of existing services which provides housing support workers, sheltered housing managers, women’s refuge workers, etc. support vulnerable adults to prevent hospital admissions, evictions, mental ill health, homelessness and anti-social behaviour. The budget is additionally utilised to provide a range of non-statutory welfare services including handyperson, accident prevention, and hospital discharge support.

The council aims to make a reduction in costs (cut) of £900,000 through the new contracts. As they are due to run from February 1st there is no time for the Executive to make a decision so it is delegated to Head of Regeneration, Andy Donald and Director of Adult  Social Services, Alison Elliott in consultation with the lead members. LINK

Blue Badge Scheme for people with disabilities
Introduction of a £10 charge for Blue Badges usually payable every three years when badges are renewed plus tougher enforcement. LINK

Green Charter Monitoring
I will cover this in a separate posting. LINK 

Secondary School Expansion 2012-16
I have already blogged on these proposals which involve increasing the capacity of some secondary schools to cater for rising numbers. Kingsbury High will have 15 classes in each age group which will make it a very large school. My blog  HERE Executive Report LINK 

Capital funding for expansion of Vicar's Green Primary, Ealing
Vicar's Green is just over the border in Ealing and provides places for many Brent children. Brent will make a contribution to its expansion to provide more places subject to consultation LINK  

 London Living Wage 
Brent is aiming to becoming an accredited London Living Wage organisation itself and enouraging out-sourced suppliers to also pay it. It is not included as a requirement in the current Public Realm procurement.  My blog on it HERE Council Report: LINK 
 
 Working with Families
An integrated strategy to work with Brent's 810 'Troubled Families' aiming to save money by making it unnecessary for children to go into care and maximising Brent's income from the Government's 'Payment by Results' funding.(!)  It is worth reading the report in full LINK

Annual Audit Letter 2011-12
The letter from the Audiitor states:   
 Following the Audit Committee, on 28 September 2012 Ithe Auditor:
• issued unqualified opinions on the 2011/12 financial statements of the Council and the Pension Fund; and
• concluded that Brent Council made proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use of resources in 2011/12.


London Housing Consortium
Proposes that the Brent Executive's responsibilities for the Consortium be discharged to the Lead Member for Housing and another non Executive member (TBC) who will be on the the newly formed Joint Committee of the London Housing Consortium LINK

 The meeting begins at 7pm at Committee Rooms 1-3 Brent Town Hall and is likely to be over by 7pm.


Tuesday 8 January 2013

Butt under pressure but sticks to strategy of acquiescence to cuts

There was a lively discussion yesterday evening when Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt met with members of the Brent LRC (Labour Representation Committee) which is a group of left-wing Labour supporters. Cllr Butt was accompanied by his political adviser.

Butt reiterated his commitment to setting a 'legal' budget although observers pointed out that it was not illegal to set a needs based budget and no surcharge is involved under current legislation. All that would happen is that council officers would implement the Coalition imposed cuts.

He said that there would be an additional 2% of cuts on top of those in the three year budget plan but that in 2013-14 the overall cuts are  likely to be less than in the last 2 years. Although figures must have been drawn up by now he gave no details to the audience. More cuts are in the Coalition pipeline for 2014-15 and onwards.

It was unclear what, if any, public discussion or consultation would take place about the budget despite requests (including mine at the Budget and Finance Scrutiny Committee in December)  that the period be used to build support for a needs led budget. This would be used as campaigning tool backed by  the Brent  public so that pressure, alongside that of other councils could be put on the Coalition to reduce or reverse cuts in local government funding.

LRC members were disappointed by  what they see as the council's acquiescence in Coalition cuts. One commented, 'They lack any concept of, or confidence in, a class fightback. At best they can see the need for modestly ameliorative policy measures. Even that takes a struggle with the right wing. That's how bad things are.'

Further disappointment came when Cllr Claudia Hector, who has previously been critical of cuts, said according to one source that the public were not in the mood for a fightback so that the Butt programme was all that could be done. Another source, who attended the meeting,  felt this wasn't an entirely fair summary of her comment stating,.  'When someone compared the situation to that of fighting the Poll Tax at the end of the 1980s, Claudia  said that there wasn't the same level of public awareness on the issues'.

Asked if paying employees the London Living Wage, which is Council policy LINK,  had been written into the multi-million Public Realm contract covering waste, recycling and parks maintenance that is currently being procured, Cllr Butt said it had not - leaving his audience somewhat puzzled.

On a slightly more optimistic note Muhammed Butt  made it clear that he opposes academies and free schools and would issue a statement on the issue if there was any local action.


Sunday 6 January 2013

Brent Council to act on London Living Wage

London Citizens as well as the Green Party have supported a London Living Wage
 A report going before the next Brent Executive recommends the following actions:

That the Executive agrees to the Council seeking Accreditation as a London Living Wage Employer.

That the Executive agrees to the take positive steps to review its existing contracts over a three year period on a case by case basis to wherever possible apply LLW criteria.

That Social Care  contracts are examined with the London Living Wage Foundation and other LLW Boroughs to explore the application of LLW.

That the Executive agrees that Officers should act to promote the application of the LLW to schools, businesses and other organisations within Brent.

The Executive agrees that subject to Finance, Procurement and Legal advice officers seek to apply the LLW consideration when tendering
A further recommendation states:
That Members note the comments of the Deputy Director of Finance regarding the potential cost of applying LLW.
A dispute between Muhammed Butt and Gareth Daniel over the affordability of  paying the London Living Wage is widely believed to have contributed to the latter's demise.   Directly employed Brent staff and agency workers employed by the Council will all be on the London Living Wage by October this year. Problems arise over out-sourced staff such as social carers and those employed by schools.

Governing bodies, rather than the council, make school employment decisions so the council will seek to influence schools rather than direct them. Potential legal difficulties are also likely in terms of the council's duty to seek 'best value' in terms of procurement and they would need to demonstrate that paying the London Living Wage would enhance the service. This might be an issue in the huge public realm contract that was advertised before Christmas covering waste collection recycling  street cleaning and parks maintenance. The sole award criteria is 'the most economic tender' which suggests low wages LINK

The report makes a persuasive case for paying the London Living Wage which has been a campaigning aim of the Green Party since its inception in 2005 but which in 2011 was only paid by a handful of London Councils. The Green Party also supports a national living wage.
Income is one of the key determinants of building in individual and community resilience to these unprecedented economic circumstances. Brent is described as a ‘low income’ Borough and its’ patterns of occupations have been in sectors where pay is lower than average. By signing up to the London Living Wage the Council can by its actions show commitment and Leadership to lift the incomes of both its residents and people who work for it.

The main benefits which have been so far experienced by both Public and Private Sectors in applying the London Living Wage have been:
• lower staff turnover
• improved productivity
• lower sickness absence

In addition by applying and extending London Living Wage the Council would be in a position to help encourage employers who pay low wages to set a minimum pay rate that enables employees to provide the essentials of life. It will also fit squarely with the Councils vision and values and promote the recruitment and retention of a high quality workforce to deliver for the Council and its Communities.
I welcome the Council's move but regret that this is in the context of  the overall cuts in council jobs (with more to come) and the imposition of flexible working on council staff.

For doubters about the efficacy of the policy this report from the BBC may help change your mind. It is argued that paying the Living Wage could actually save £2bn: LINK



Monday 12 November 2012

Butt reaffirms Council commitment to London Living Wage

In his report to Full Council, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt reiterates the Executive's support for the London Living Wage to be paid to directly employed council workers. The London Living Wage was recently increased to £8.55 an hour.  The Living Wage is distinct from the lower Minimum Wage, which in London is barely a survival wage. The council also aims to extend the living wage to all its contractors.

It is believed that payment of the London Living Wage was one of the issues behind the conflict between Butt and Gareth Daniel which led to the latter leaving his job and it remains a controversial issue within the Labour group on the council. Its implementation in Brent has been accompanied by the intention to impose flexible work patterns on the entire Brent Council workforce.

In his report Muhammed Butt says:
We will become a Living Wage Borough. We believe that it is a fundamental moral principle that people should be paid enough to more than simply exist. We will with other Public and private sector organisations become accredited with the Living Wage Foundation. In doing this we commit to extending the living wage principles which we already adhere to with our own staff to all those contracts outside of Social Care, and also to a dialogue with the Living Wage Foundation and other Councils to find an affordable way to extend our living wage offer to all contracts. Fair pay is essential to address our three key tenets of fairness, supporting community and the local economy.
I welcome the commitment to pay the London Living Wage at a time when families and individuals are faced with so much pressure due to Coalition and council cuts.  What many people don’t know is that the Living Wage Unit was set up under Ken Livingstone’s administration thanks to the Green Party members of the London Assembly, Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson.

They held a casting vote over the Mayor’s budget for four years and used it to get a fair deal for all London government’s employees and create the Living Wage Unit to calculate the amount needed to get by in the capital


Monday 5 November 2012

London Living Wage increased but 1 in 5 Londoners on poverty wages

Thanks to Brent BASIS for this:

New analysis funded by Trust for London shows that there has been a 100,000 increase in the number of London jobs paying below the London Living Wage (LLW) - taking the total to 580,000. This means that 1 in 5 Londoners working in the capital are now paid poverty wages.

This is despite a new piece of research by Queen Mary, University of London (commissioned by Trust for London) showing that paying the Living Wage has big benefits for business, workers and the Treasury.

The research is the first to provide data showing the Living Wage increases the happiness of workers; it shows:

  • Over half of employees (54%) felt more positive about their workplace once the LW was introduced and 52% felt more loyal.
  • Staff leaving rates fell by 25%.
  • Almost a third (32%) of workers felt it benefitted their family life by allowing them to do things like spend more time with family.
·         Almost 4 in 10 (38%) workers reported financial benefits such as being able to buy more goods and save more.

In addition companies interviewed said the reputational benefits of paying the LW helped them attract new business and customers. Employers also reported HR benefits at all levels with high calibre graduates at one employer citing paying the living wage as one of the top 3 reasons for applying as it demonstrates corporate social responsibility.

The Living Wage rate for workers in London is to increase by 25p an hour to £8.55, the capital's mayor has announced. Boris Johnson said the new rate will be worth £4.5 million a year for lower-paid workers. The Living Wage rate outside London will also rise by 25p to £7.45, benefiting thousands of workers.

Thursday 27 September 2012

Butt on the rack says "We want to go back to what Labour stands for"

Speaking at an open meeting of Brent Trades Union Council yesterday evening, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt admitted that some of the decisions the  council had made could have been made more wisely and that things could have been done differently. He said that he wants to take residents' views into account more in the future and that desire had caused some 'push back', which had culminated in the argument with Gareth Daniel.

He said that he wanted to take a detailed look at the council's budget, "How we provide services and why, reviewing every service."  He said that all directly employed council workers would receive the London Living Wage from October 1st  and that the council would be writing to schools to urge them to pay the LLW. He would be meeting with the London Living Wage Foundation to find ways of ensuring all the council's suppliers were London Living Wage compliant. He said that given the current difficult times the council had to do something positive to put money in people's pockets.

Other initiatives were to look at tenancies and how the council could improve standards without increasing rents, extend collective  energy procurement to include residents as well as council buildings and schools, and find ways of strengthening voluntary organisations such as the Credit Union, Private Tenants Group and the Law Centre.

He said, "We want to go back to what Labour stands for and why we are here."

In the discussion Butt was urged to recognise that the Labour Party was much more than just a council, it was part of the labour movement, and thus should be a campaigning  organisation against the capitalist system. He was asked how he was planning to organise a fightback alongside trades unions and the community.

Butt responded, "Me being here is just a start. I am willing to go anywhere, whether to a warm reception or a hostile one, to have a dialogue."

 He said that the Labour Group had appointed a new local organiser who would help get their message across and have a dialogue to move things forward, "We are starting campaigning and need to raise awareness. We want to make that change and if we don't our residents will suffer."

Asked about the budget process and council tax increases and urged to construct a needs budget as a campaigning tool,  he said that with the changes in the consultation system (The Area Consultation Forums have been replaced by Brent Connects) with a member/officer Any Questions type panel there would be more of a dialogue. Council Tax rises of 2.5% and 3.5% had been factored into budget planning but the council were waiting to see what other London councils were doing. The government's announcement of the settlement had been delayed until December but the council wanted an  indication before then. The council were also lobbying the government over the additional 60,000-70,000 extra residents indicated by the latest census which could be worth an additional £4m . This could negate the need for a rise in council tax because the council would only get 65% of the money raised by an increase He indicated that because of the delays the statutory consultation may run out of time.  He invited people to feed specific suggestions and questions into the budget making process.

When others present pursued the issue of making a needs based budget (ie deficit budget)  Cllr Butt said they were looking at campaigning  against the cuts. However, "We can oppose the cuts but budgets have to be set. We wouldn't be doing anyone any favours if the commissioners came in. They would keep only statutory services such as schools and adult social care. We would lose Sports Centres for example. We would land ourselves in more problems by taking that route. Instead we will have a dialogue which may mean working with other London boroughs. If you are asking us to take a lead, we will take a lead."

Outlining the sums the council needed to run services he said that government funding to Brent  was now £152m, was £192m, and by 2016 would be £110m.  Schools and Adult Social Care took £140m of this. The council needed £250m to run services so this total had to be made up from Council Tax and fees and charges.

Another speaker told Butt that a needs budget could not be set in the Town Hall, the council need to go out to voluntary organisations, trades unions and community groups - that was real democracy. He claimed that Labour had "forgotten what democracy looks like". In the absence of a fightback all sorts of rightwing nastiness and racism could arise.

Another speaker returned to the issue asking, "Are you considering a needs budget. It is a good propaganda tool showing what is needed and where the gaps are. Are you considering this or just administering cuts? We can't wait for the next Labour government. We need concrete exmaples of how you are going to fight."

Butt said that he was not ruling out a needs budget which would "show how much we have lost and how much we need". . Muhammed's new political advisor  he would be lobbying the Labour Party over how much cash needs to be put back into local government after the disproportionate cuts it had suffered.

On the issue of Willesden Green Library, raised by three members of the audience, Cllr Butt  said that he had met with Keep Willesden Green campaigners and had passed on their concerns to Galliford Try, planners and the Regeneration Team, and their points will be taken into consideration for the new plans being presented in December.. He said that the old Willesen Library was now being retained and this meant internal redesigns. The council were still looking at 92 private units at the back of the site and this was the only way to fund it.

He was challenged with  the alternative of a small amount of building and refurbishment and the loss of the cinema,  bookshop and car park in the current plans.   The questioner said, "It's like saying I need a new boiler so I will knock my house down! I've heard it called asset stripping."  Butt responded that a lot of the 'stuff' in the 80s building had come to the end of its natural life and the building was unfinished. The cafe and cinema  had closed as a result of not being used. "We need a mini Civic Centre in Willesden so people from this area don't have to travel all the way to Wembley and we need it an no cost to us."

On the plight of the disabled he said that he took the point about how they were being hit and that he was looking at helping them through the Council Tax Support Scheme: "If we have to lobby the government we will do so."

In answer to another questioner about the council's ambivalent attitude to free schools and academies and a possible forced academy in the borough, Butt said that they were a last resort to address the shortage of school places. He said that for free schools the council had set out criteria for partners that would keep the essential principles in terms of admissions, ethos and teachers conditions of service. He was urged to consider federation of schools and extending schools as an alternative.

Asked about the Counihan family, Muhammed Butt said that it was a difficult case. Brent had 18,000 families on the waiting list and only 900 properties available. The council hoped to provide 1,700 affordable properties by 2014. He said the only way  to tackle the problem was through regeneration and Section 106 funds  and the council needed to find developer partners. The situation would be exacerbated by the new Right to Buy scheme which would take out larger properties.

Clr Butt concluded by saying that the council had been rubbished by the press and had to admit it had got its messages wrong: "We need to get better, even if it means starting from scratch."

Pete Firm, chair of Brent TUC said that he felt the council were rolling over in front of developers. Labour seemed to be assuming it was going to win the next election, However, it should not be a matter of voting Labour because the alternatives were worse but Labour putting forward policies that people would be enthusiastic about.




Thursday 19 January 2012

Pay London Living Wage, supermarkets told


Darren Johnson, Green Party London Assembly Member,  has called on supermarkets, the Mayor and Government to make work pay for all workers in London, following an investigation by the Fair Pay Network into low pay in the four largest supermarket chains.

Last year the National Minimum Wage fell further behind the cost of living in the capital, rising 2.5% while the London Living Wage – calculated to cover basic living costs in the capital – rose by 5.7%. The higher rise in the London rate was attributed to benefit and tax credit cuts, and rises in food costs, average rents and public transport fares.

Darren Johnson commented:
The minimum wage isn’t keeping up with the rising cost of living in London, forcing more parents to work two jobs to make ends meet. The Government needs to ramp the minimum wage up to be a genuine living wage, but instead they are letting the gap grow wider.

The Mayor of London needs to get on his bully pulpit and call for all employers in London to prioritise pay rises for the lowest paid above bonuses for chief executives. In this age of obscene inequality we cannot leave it to employers to make sure they pay their staff enough for a basic standard of living.