When is a Brent consultation NOT a consultation?

Council Tax Support: 3 days to respond to Brent's 'hidden' consultation

I wrote a little while ago about the hidden away Brent Council consultation on Council Tax support in which the council indicates it wants to continue the present scheme despite the furore over vulnerable residents unable to pay  receiving summonses to Willesden Magistrates Court and incurring extra court charges as a result.

An official complaint is being lodged on the grounds that the consultation has not been well puiblicised (not even to the Citizen's Panel), that it is on-line only making it less accessible to those who it affects because they are less likely to have access to a computer at home, and the very short consultation period. The consultation ends on Friday December 6th.

As one activist said: 'It is almost as if Brent Council doesn't want anyone to respond.'

You can access the consultation here LINK

Meanwhile Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (ZK2 ) LINK has made a response to the consultation.  ZK2000 started as a Christian organisation campaigning against the poll tax.It is s a London-based charity addressing poverty issues caused by unfairness in the law, legal and benefits system.

ZK2000 blogged:

As we have explained previously Z2K is totally opposed to the abolition of Council Tax Benefit and the government’s 10% funding cut, but we also think that local authorities that have tried to make up this funding shortfall by introducing a minimum payment are simply heaping further misery on their poorest residents.

In Brent the minimum payment has led to over 3,500 residents who formerly paid no council tax at all being taken to court with threat of almost £100 in legal fees being added to their debt. In our experience these people aren’t refusing to pay but simply can’t. We believe this just the beginning and expect that many more will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budgets unmanageable.

Here is their submission to the Council's consultation questions:
 

1. With reference to the 6 key principles listed above, please indicate how important these are to you? (Please rank each area according to importance: 1 being most important and 6 being least important)

Please click the options below in order of preference.

 Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

 Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected” (from the minimum contribution)

 Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

 Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

 Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

We will rank Principle 2 as number 1 and leave the rest blank.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing “No Change” in its CTS scheme for 2014-15, except for including an additional group to be classed as vulnerable (see question 3)?

Z2K strongly objects to Brent’s proposal for maintaining its current CTS scheme. We believe, and our experience supporting Brent resident’s shows, that the minimum payment required by the scheme is pushing some of Brent’s most deprived resident’s further into poverty.

Benefits are supposedly calculated on the basis of providing the minimum necessary to live on, yet they fall far short of Minimum Income Standards (the amount required for a minimum acceptable living standard, for more information see http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis). For a single person over the age of 25 the £71.70 weekly Job Seekers Allowance is only 38% of their minimum income standard and for a couple with two children their benefits only provide 58% of what is required for an acceptable standard of living.

This already insufficient income level is being further eroded by the government’s programme of welfare reform. In Brent 1,688 residents have had their housing benefit reduced by the ‘Bedroom Tax’ while 1,177 claimants have been hit by the Benefit Cap. Overall Brent is the local authority worst affected by welfare reform in London and research by Sheffield Hallam University has shown the cuts will result in residents losing £150m.

On top of this councillors have decided to introduce a minimum council tax payment that is amongst the highest in London, only Harrow is charging more (22.5%) and three other boroughs are charging the same amount (Ealing, Hillingdon & Newham). For the vast majority of CTS claimants this minimum payment has to come out of benefits which are already insufficient to provide for the basics of life, and in many cases have already been reduced by other welfare reforms. This means that just under 25,000 Brent residents have been placed in the impossible situation of trying to cut down their food, utility bills or other house essential costs in order to pay their council tax.

Unsurprisingly many have been unable to do so, resulting in almost 3,500 Brent residents being issued with court summons for non-payment of council tax so far this year. Our experience providing advice to some of those summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court on 5^th November and others over the summer demonstrated they are not ‘refusing to pay, regardless of support offered’, as the authority has previously claimed. We found a number of very vulnerable individuals and families who simply couldn’t pay, several of whom were in a state of serious anxiety and visibly distressed by the threat of legal action.

In our opinion these 3,500 summonses are just the beginning. We expect that many of those who have hitherto been managing to meet the minimum payment will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budges unmanageable, particularly as utility bills increase  with the onset of winter and the need to heat their homes. We are also concerned that those claimants who have previously been summonsed will not manage to pay off their arrears before the end of the financial year, creating the potential for a cycle of debt when they receive their 2014/15 bills.

As such we question the councils assumed collection rate of 80% of the minimum payment, upon which rests the supposed financial neutrality of the scheme. Given that the 80% target was not based on proper modelling and is effectively a guess, as well as the failure to take into account the costs of enforcement to the council, we question the financial viability of the minimum payment in making up the cut government funding.

Indeed any assessment of whether the proposal to maintain the current system for 2014/15 is correct should be undertaken on the basis of the fullest possible information. It is important the council takes into account the experience of the first year using evidence on arrears rates, cost of collection and impacts such as any increase in homelessness. Without providing this information the authority has prevented Brent residents from making an informed decision in their consultation responses. We can only hope that such evidence is provided to councillors in a thorough going impact assessment of the 2013/14 scheme before they make the decision for next year.    

Ultimately although we understand that financial pressure of the 10% funding cut has placed Brent in a difficult situation, we still believe it is possible to find a way not to pass this cut on to your poorest residents. As we have pointed out previously, six London authorities have maintained 100% council tax benefit while a further four have made changes to their scheme but have not implemented a minimum payment. 

We note that not all the boroughs that have chosen to retain 100% benefit are ‘affluent’ as is sometimes claimed by local councillors. Tower Hamlets for example is the 3^rd most deprived local authority in the country and has a similar number of CTB claimants to Brent, yet councillors there have chosen not to pass the cut onto their residents and found the money elsewhere.

In light of this we call for Brent to abolish the minimum payment and reinstate 100% council tax support, as well as joining the campaign against this iniquitous policy.

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing to protect customers on Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit by classing these customers as being a vulnerable group in its CTS scheme for 2014-15?

While we believe that only the abolition of the minimum payment will create a fair and just Council Tax Support scheme we welcome any expansion of the exemptions to the minimum payment. In this regard, we agree with the authority’s proposal to class Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit claimant’s as a vulnerable group and thereby exempt them from the minimum payment from 2014-15 onwards.

However we note that in response to our highlighting the issue of Incapacity Benefit in regards to a client of ours the council agreed to apply the exemption to their 2013/14 account and waive their summons costs. We believe it would be unfair to not apply the same decision to other Brent taxpayers in the same situation as our client, whether they have been hitherto meeting the payments or struggled to do so and received a court summons and incurred additional costs. 

4. With reference to Principle 2 set out above, please give details of any other groups that you believe should be protected apart from those already proposed and give reasons why.

It is our belief that any individual or family that is forced to rely on state benefits is by definition vulnerable, particularly in a financial sense, and should therefore be exempt from paying council tax. That is why we argue for the abolition of the minimum payment. However if the council continues to refuse to do so, there are a number of particular vulnerable groups that could and should be protected.  

First among these are Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants. We note that Brent has previously stated that it is not necessary to exempt ESA claimants as disabled people are already covered under the DLA and disability premium exemptions.  However, this fails to take account of the fact that not all ESA claimants also claim DLA. 

Indeed the council has already recognised the need to exempt those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit meaning it would be inconsistent not to extend this exemption to ESA claimants. This is because Incapacity Benefit is in the process of being abolished and replaced by ESA. There are no new claims for Incapacity Benefit allowed and claimants are gradually being migrated to ESA. This means that if an Incapacity Benefit claimant is migrated to ESA and doesn’t also receive DLA or a disability premium they will then lose their exemption to the minimum payment, although their circumstances will have otherwise remained unchanged. Such a situation is surely inconsistent with the principle of exempting those on Incapacity Benefit and should be remedied immediately.

Brent Council wants to leave Council Tax Support unchanged despite summonsing 3,300

The demonstration outside Willesden Magistrates Court

Some Brent Council consultations get more publicity than others. This one on the Council Tax Support Scheme seems a little hidden away so I thought I would bring it to your attention. The present system resulted in 3,300 people being summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court by the Council for non-payment and a demonstration outside the court which received wide publicity. Some of those summonsed incurred extra court charges of £90 or more on top of the amount owed.

This consultation started without fanfare on November 11th and ends on December 12th.

Now believe it or not the Council, with minor changes, wants to keep essentially the same scheme despite Muhammed Butt vowing that Labour would protect the vulnerbale at last night's Council Meeting.

Below is an extract from the Council website. You can see the full consultation portal and submit your views HERE

Now Woodfield School consults on academy conversion

Woodfield School, a secondary special needs school in Kingsbury, Brent has announced that it is consulting on the possibility of converting to secondary status.

It would be the first special needs school to convert and the last of the local authority secondary schools to move to academy status.

The document below has sent out to interested parties and sets out the Governing Body's position:

The Governing Body of Woodfield School is exploring whether to convert to academy status. As part of this exploration, the Governors are seeking responses about whether to convert, especially the reasons for the views that are held. The responses will help inform Governors’ final decision.

Brent’s approach to consultation – has anything changed?

Acknowledgement: http://myhome.iolfree.ie/~lightbulb/Research.html

Four years ago, in the infancy of this blog, I published an article entitled 'Is consultation a con?'  LINK which suggested a series of possible definitions so that the purpose and limits of consultation was transparent. Since then we have had many 'consultations' in Brent and the problem remains as this 'Case Study' Guest Blog by Philip Grant as well as the earlier posting by 'Malinowski'  shows.

1. Introduction: In 2011 we witnessed a disastrously mishandled consultation process over Brent’s Libraries Transformation Project, when Council Officers treated the views expressed by local residents with contempt, yet still managed to get the Executive to rubber-stamp their plans. The repercussions of that episode still continue today. Brent Council has moved on, and now has enshrined in Article 10 of its Constitution the following commitments:

1.  The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.

2.  The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place:

• in an environment where people are better informed about local services;

• where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so; and

• where council decisions can be seen to reflect the views and concerns of local residents.

That is very good, but has anyone told Council Officers about this? Let me share with you a genuine “Case Study”, which has happened during the past three weeks.

2. Case Study: I am one of those people who ‘care enough to want to take part’, and along with five other members from local history societies accepted the invitation to take part in a stakeholder consultation meeting at the Civic Centre to help develop a new Museum and Archives Strategy. It was chaired by Neil Davies (Strategy and Service Development) [“ND”], who told us that the draft strategy would be prepared in time to go out for consultation at “Brent Connects” in January 2014, with the Council deciding on the new strategy in the Spring. He had already received views from “internal stakeholders”, and our views would be among several inputs into the draft strategy by “external stakeholders”.

Although most of the meeting was positive, with plenty of participation and many sensible ideas put forward, it got off to a bad start. One of the first points raised by us was why a staff restructuring exercise was taking place now at the Museum and Archives, when surely the time to do this would be after the new Strategy had been consulted on and decided, which would still give plenty of time before the new facilities open at Willesden Green in Spring 2015. ND did not appear to know about the restructuring. Sue McKenzie (Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage) [“SMc”] was also at the meeting, but she refused to discuss her staff restructuring plans, as these were ‘an internal matter’.

I had already heard a little of what the staff restructuring plans were, and emailed that evening (16 October) to Sue Harper (Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services) [“SH”] to express my concern about the consultation process being undermined. It appeared that SMc was trying to push through a restructuring by December 2013, based on her own view of what a new Museum and Archives Strategy should be, while the consultation process was actually in progress which should decide that strategy. I also explained that if the experienced existing staff lost their jobs, which seemed a likely result of SMc’s proposals, it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage Services.

I received a “reply” from Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods) [“JI”] on 18 October, which did not answer either of the points I had raised. Instead it explained that SMc couldn’t discuss the restructuring plans in public, because ‘the impact on our teams is something for Sue to manage carefully, sensitively and supportively with those individuals who are affected.’ (My reply to this point was: ‘I suggest that you visit RK and MBB in the cramped basement storeroom at George Furness House where they currently have to work, and ask them, face-to-face, whether the proposed restructuring which they have been faced with since 18 September has been managed 'carefully, sensitively and supportively.' – to the best of my knowledge, no such visit has yet been made.)

The rest of JI’s long email to me was a justification of the restructuring exercise, including several quotations from reports by national bodies, most of which I have later discovered was “copied and pasted” from a document written by SMc, topped off with the claim that: ‘the proposals have been discussed with The National Archive who are supportive of the proposals’. In my reply (19 October) I pointed out that the quotations merely gave good reasons why a review of Museum and Archives Strategy should be taking place, that consultation on this was taking place, and that ND had told us at our stakeholder meeting that the “discussions” she was putting forward as support for SMc’s restructuring proposals were actually one of the inputs into his consultation on the new strategy.

My reply to JI also restated, without any room for doubt, what were the two issues which needed to be resolved, that the restructuring should not be taking place now because it went against Brent’s commitments on consultation, and that if the restructuring did take place now it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage services. As before, her “reply” (23 October) ignored both of these points, again defending the staff restructuring and saying it was: ‘an internal matter, and Sue Mckenzie is fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures. The views of the affected staff will be carefully considered when the final decision on the future structure of the museum and archive is made.’ (We will return to those ‘proper HR processes’ later.)

JI’s email also said that: ‘The staff restructure will ensure flexibility to deliver the new museum and archive strategy’ (which turned out to be another “copy and paste” from SMc). My response (also 23 October) was:

‘How can you be sure, when that strategy is still not even in draft form? SMc has submitted her ideas to ND, as an internal stakeholder, but if his consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy is to have any credibility, she should not be implementing a staff restructuring in Museum and Archives, presumably based on her own view of the future staff needs of Museum and Archives, until after the Strategy has been properly decided. That is the key point of principle here, and that is why the Museum and Archives staff restructuring must be halted.’

I don’t know about you, but I thought that was a pretty convincing argument. Whether JI was convinced I will never know, because she did not attempt to counter it, replying on 24 October (please note the date):

‘The position is unchanged.  I reiterate, the new team will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the new strategy and ensure that the new museum and archive provides a service that is relevant to a wider group of our residents. You will be consulted on the museum and archive strategy as appropriate. The Council will not enter into further correspondence on the staff restructure.’

Now, I thought that on 16 October I had raised an important point with a Council Director which needed to be considered and resolved. In several exchanges of emails I had put that point, and the reasons supporting the view I was taking. In return, the Senior Council Officer I was dealing with side-stepped the key issue, did not try to resolve anything and then refused to discuss the matter further. What could I do? Well, I don’t give up if I feel I have an important and valid point, and ‘the Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication’, so I went back to the top.

I wrote straight away, jointly to SH and Cllr. Roxanne Mashari [“RM”, who has been copied in on all of the correspondence, but has not contacted me at all], saying that the issue I had raised did need to be resolved, and drawing attention to JI’s references to a “new team”:

‘As SMc and JI are apparently already determined that there will be a "new team", what chance is there of any genuine consideration being given to the alternative proposals which I understand the existing Archives team (the Museum Curator having left last month) intend to put forward?

The implementation now of a staff restructuring by SMc raises similar concerns over how genuine the consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy will be. I am sure that ND will do a conscientious job in producing a new Strategy document, but behind his back SMc will already have put in place the "new team" that she has chosen. Until the new Strategy has been properly consulted on and decided, how can anyone really know whether the existing team, or at least some members of it, could deliver Brent's future Museum and Archives Strategy as well as, if not better than, any "new team"?’

Having asked some important questions, what answers did I get to them from SH on 28 October? None!

‘Thank you for your email of 24 October.  In recognition of the fact that you have a number of concerns outstanding, in line with our complaints procedure, I have asked the Council’s Complaints Manager, Phillip Mears, to undertake a first stage complaints investigation on my behalf.  Once Mr Mears has completed his investigation I will write to you with my decision.’

I responded that I had not actually made a complaint, and that although there might be some serious concerns which could be looked at to see whether they could have been handled better, the key point was to put any staff restructuring “on hold” until after the new Museum and Archives strategy had been properly consulted on and decided. I heard nothing further until SH replied on 4 November, saying:

‘As you know, I have asked Philip Mears to investigate your concerns as part of the Council’s complaint procedure and he will reply to you shortly. I am not prepared to get into further correspondence on the subject whilst this investigation is underway as in my experience it is likely to confuse the issue.’

So, yet again, no attempt by a Senior Council Officer to resolve an important point raised by a concerned participant in what was supposed to be a genuine Brent consultation exercise. By the time it was sent, SMc had issued her Final Decision Paper (“FDP”) on her staff restructuring proposals. It turned out that much of JI’s email to me of 18 October, and parts of some others, had been “copied and pasted” from the FDP, most of which had been written before SMc received the comments and alternative proposals from the staff she was supposedly consulting. And as for ‘the views of the affected staff will be carefully considered’, the thoughtful and sensible alternatives, which would ensure a good front-line service for the public and be delivered with a slightly larger cost saving, were rejected. The reason was because they did not meet the future service requirements (SMc’s own vision of what the new Strategy should be) set out in her consultation document. 

How a consultation which only allows you to give the answer that the person “consulting” with you wants can be treated as ‘fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures’, I fail to understand. It was a sham, and because of it, the existing team at Brent Archives will have their jobs “deleted”. They will be able to apply for “new posts” (several grades above the level they are currently employed at) which they are unlikely to get, especially with SMc also dismissing their request that she should not be on the panel interviewing them, because of her conflict of interests in the matter. 

What could I do about it? Well, I have made a detailed formal complaint to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, against the actions of three Senior Brent Council Officers. She has refused to put the staff restructuring “on hold”, so even if my complaint is eventually upheld, it will probably be too late to save the jobs of the staff who will be key to delivering the sort of front-line Archives service that “external stakeholders” would like to see as part of the new Museum and Archives Strategy.

3. Conclusion. You may think I am naive (you would probably be right) but I believe that much more positive results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. That is what I try to do in practice, but it needs to be seen to work, and at the moment it is not working.

My experience here is that Senior Officers have not learned the proper lessons from the way that they and, on their advice, Brent’s Executive mishandled the Libraries Transformation Project consultation exercise in 2011. Instead, the lesson they seem to have taken from it is that as they “got away with it” then, they can do the same again. For things to improve, Senior Officers need to set an example, and embrace the Council’s commitments on consultation. They should not, as in this case study, undermine or ignore proper consultation procedures. They should treat with respect, and seek to work together with, Councillors, staff and Brent’s citizens, in an open, transparent and reasonable manner. If they cannot, or will not, they should seek employment elsewhere.

If you have any comments or experiences to share, either for or against the views I have set out, please “post” them below, but no abuse, please. If any of the Officers I have mentioned wish to have a right of reply, I hope that Martin will allow it to them. A big “Thank You” to Martin for giving me the chance to write this “guest blog”, and thanks to you for reading it.

Philip Grant.

Postscript from Hitchhikers Guide to the Planet on Planning Consultations

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 

'Consultation': An Anthropologist Explains

Guest Post from 'Malinowski'

From today's Wembley and Willesden Observer

As Copland Community School begins its Academy 'Consultation', interested parties, or anyone with a passing interest in cultural relativism, might like to know what this 'consultation' business is all about, and in what ways it differs from  our everyday, common-sense understanding of what consultation might mean.

The first thing to remember is that, in certain advanced societies, 'consultation' is a word with a specific cultural meaning. Put simply, it describes a period of time which begins at a certain point and then ends some time later. The period in between these points is called a 'consultation period'. (Indeed, the ancients used to measure time and age in 'consultations' and would refer to an elder of the village as 'a wise man of four score consultations').

Current custom demands that the 'consultation' must not begin unless and until its subject's outcome has been decided; (and commonly,as in the case of the current Copland 'consultation',  not until the outcome has actually been announced and published to those affected by it). 

 The 'consultation' itself involves various traditional 'consultative' activities and behaviours which are of no more than ritual significance  but which are nevertheless strictly observed, especially by those who have previously decided or approved the outcome, (invariably those of higher status within the group's power hierarchy).

Those occupying lower positions in the  pecking order are also encouraged to take an active part (or 'participate') in these ritual behaviours as tradition has it that this gives them 'ownership'  of the pre-ordained outcome.

As 'ownership' of any kind (especially 'private') is a high-status concept in such groups' belief-systems, this can be seductive to the more suggestible members of the group and conformity is further reinforced by the fact that  to point out the fatuity of the 'consultation' is regarded as taboo within the community and can lead to the disapproval or opprobrium of the community elders and their more compliant subjects.

In societies which practise it, the 'consultation' phenomenon is most commonly observed during what is called the 'planning' period, (named thus because it occurs after all the plans have been made).  Members of the public who unexpectedly come upon a group engaged in a 'consultation exercise' ( so called because it involves the expenditure of a great deal of energy to no particular purpose )  are advised to remain at a respectful distance from the participants but can be confident that they are perfectly safe.

Despite the solemnity and sometimes alarming  vigour with which the 'consultation exercise' is apparently being performed, the moment it is over observers may rest assured that life will calmly carry on as if the whole process had never ever actually taken place.

Further advice for travellers likely to be visiting communities where 'consultations' are prevalent can be found at https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice.

Brent's own Welsh village school is determined to survive redevelopment plans

Nestled between Stonebridge Primary School and Our Lady of Lourdes RC Primary School on Hillside, Stonebridge, and easy to miss,  lies one of Brent's hidden gems.

Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain (London Welsh School) has occupied the site since 2000 after its move from a Welsh Chapel in Willesden.

Now there are concerns about its future following the Brent Council Executive's approval of plans to expand Stonebridge Primary School, sell off its current Annex for housing and reconfigure Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the adjacent open space.

The school is a Welsh village school in the heart of London. Although the Executive report said that the number of pupils  was 'well below the maximum of 30' there are in fact 36 full-time statutory age children  attending and 41 if you include the nursery.

The school receives a grant from the Welsh Government and charges fees of £800 a term. However parents' ability to pay is means tested and the Chair of the Board of directors, Eleri Brady said they 'pay what they can afford to pay and we never refuse a place to a child'. The school has to find the difference and is involved in lots of fund raising. An earlier application to become a free school in  order to secure the school's future was not approved.

At present the premises are leased from Stonebridge Primary and the arrangement goes back to a period when Stonebridge was a one form entry in a cavernous building. The council report says that the arrangement needs to be 'regularised', and the lease 'put on a commercial footing or terminated'.

Eleri Brady at the school entrance

A commercial rent or termination would see the school looking for new premises or ending its existence although there is a ray of hope in the report where it states the council should 'carefully consider any impact on the Welsh language community' going forward. Certainly there is a determination on the part of the Chair of the Board of Directors to keep the school open: 'We want to keep it special'.

The bilingual school follows the Welsh curriculum and the children do not take SATs tests, although the school does follow theEarly Years and Foundation Stage curriculum.

When I visited today the atmosphere was relaxed but purposeful with very positive relationships between children and between children and teachers. The headteacher Julie Sullivan described how the children developed confidence quickly in the school with everyone from Nursery to Year 6 able to participate in presentations and productions because of the low numbers involved.  The school is regularly visited by the Welsh media and children participate in the annual St David's Day Service Chapel of St Mary Undercroft in the Palace of Westminster.

Parents choose the school because they wanted to preserve their children's Welsh language and cultural identity and often because are were only working in London for a few years and want to ensure the continuity of the child's education. About half the children go on to an English secondary school and the others return to Wales for a Welsh secondary education as there is no equivalent Welsh secondary school in London. The children are drawn from across London by some families move closer i9n order to attend the school.

Clearly there are pressures on school places that have to be addressed but it would be a pity if the London Welsh School became a casualty of regeneration in a similar way to the fate of the much missed Willesden Bookshop. Cllr Pavey, lead member for children and families, referred at the Executive meeting to Cllr Crane's description of him supporting the Welsh School as an eccentricity. Crane is the lead member for regeneration and major projects. It would be a terrible pity if a place so unique were to disappear when the bulldozers move in and I hope a means will be found to help it survive.

Celebrating victory in an earlier threat to the Adventure Playground

Alongside the proposal for the Welsh School are plans for the Stonebridge Adventure Playground.  Presently run by the Brent Play Association, a charity of which I am one of the trustees, the report points to the possibility of reorganisation and resiting. At the Executive meeting Cllr George Crane spoke of the ' need to consult further and review the management and operation of the playground'. The Adventure Playground was funded by the Big Lottery and recently campaigned to maintain its council funding.

The report mentions the possibility of the Adventure Playground being used by Stonebridge Primary School during the day and the community after school and at weekends.

Neither the Welsh School nor the Adventure Playground seem to know much about what is planned for them so it is important that there is a full and transparent consultation about their future.

London Welsh School Contacts:

headlondonwelsh@hotmail.com
www.ysgolgymraegllundain.ik.org
Tel: 0208 965 3585

Michaela Free School bid foundering?

Last week Brent officials met with proponents of the Michaela Free School about their bid to open a four form entry secondary school at Arena House, the old College of North West London building opposite Wembley Park station.

Although Katharine Birbalsingh, infamous for her intervention at the Tory Party Conference, and her disciples were keen to assure Brent Council that they could comply with all the criteria for free school partnerships set out by the council (see below) there were doubts that they were compatible with the school's aims as set out on its website.

Additionally there are doubts about how many local parents have actually signed up to say that they are interested in sending the children to Michaela, especially as only eight people in total turned up to their consultation - very few, if any, of whom were parents of prospective students.

Well informed sources also say that the building itself is in poor condition and has an asbestos problem.

The Council's criteria for partnership are:

Academies and free school providers working with the Council will be expected to demonstrate:

1. An absolute commitment to the ethos and values of inclusive education for all Brent’s children and recognition of the positive role schools should play in the wider community.

2. A commitment to a close working relationship with the local authority in order to maintain an appropriate focus on borough-wide priorities, including local authority nomination of a member of the governing body and a commitment to sharing performance information.

3. The ability to deliver school improvement in an urban context.

4. That the establishment of the proposed education provision would be supported by demonstrable parental demand and with a genuine commitment to providing school places for local children.

5. Appropriate staffing arrangements to ensure high quality teaching and learning from qualified staff and good employment practices, including in relation to support and contracted staff.

6. A commitment to meeting the needs of Brent’s diverse community.

7. A commitment to ensuring the future employability of young people (in particular in secondary and 16 to 19) through links with business, industry and higher education.

8. A commitment to community access and use of facilities through agreed extended opening and lettings policy.

9. A commitment to good pupil nutrition and healthy eating.

10. A commitment to inclusive practice and fair access to the school for all pupils as governed by the Admission Code of Practice and the Authority’s Fair Access Protocols.

Brent's message to Birbalsingh: 'You are not wanted here'

Having attracted only six (almost all critical) people at its first consultation, Michaela Secondary Free School hit rock bottom at its second, evening, consultation last week. As far as I can ascertain two people went along and they were both opposed to Katharine Birbalsingh's 'traditional' and 'disciplined' secondary school where she has appointed herself headteacher.. One was a union representative who wanted to put her reservations on record.

The small room at Chalkhill Community Centre looked crowded, but it turned out to be full of Michaela staff and governors.

Apparently Katharine Birbalsingh didn't look very happy.

It will be interesting to see whether the DfE nonetheless goes ahead and gives Birbalsingh a stash of taxpayers' money to refurbish Arena House and pay herself and her staff salaries when Brent schools could do with the money.

Gladstone Park gains window of opportunity on forced academy conversion

Gladstone Park Primary Reception Class  December 2012
The Department for Education has told the governing body of Gladstone Park Primary that they will delay making a decision on the proposed sponsor until February 11th. The DfE had been expected to name a sponsor last week.

The letter, which appears on the school's website LINK broadens the grounds for forced academisation:

Where schools are underperforming (my emphasis) or in an Ofsted category, Ministers have been very clear that the Department should lead on brokering sponsored Academy solutions. This is because the Department's sponsor assessment process and regular contact officials  have with sponsors means that the Department is best placed to provide a complete view on an individual sponsor's current capacity and capability to deliver.

The designation of 'underperforming' clearly widens the scope for forced academisation and confirms that this is a strategy designed to escalate the conversion of local authority primary schools to academy status.

 Offering  the governing body the opportunity to give its views and ideas 'before the proposed sponsor is decided' (Note - not whether academisation is the the best solution for the school and one favoured by the governing body, staff and parents) the DfE Brokerage and School Underperformance Division delay the decision until February 11th.

However, having offered that limited opportunity, the DfE makes it clear that 'formal consultation' only takes place AFTER the governing body has agreed that the school should have a particular sponsor:

...The Department believes it is most appropriate to meet with the governing body to discuss Academy status as it is the body responsible and accountable for the school's performance and strategic direction, and can make the decision to apply for an Academy Order. We recognise the importance of consulting locally and this is a requirement before any school can open as an Academy.The formal consultation is usually started when the proposed sponsor has been identified by the Department, the governing body has met with, and agreed to be sponsored by the sponsor, and the proposal has been given Ministerial approval to be taken forward. As the key stakeholder groups (parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community) are represented on the governing body in elected and non-elected roles, it is well-placed to take this decision.

There is a tacit recognition of the potentially conflicting claims of the DfE and ministers and the local democratic role and responsibilities of the governing body. 

Reading between the lines it appears that the Department wants to avoid appearing to ride rough-shod over current democratic arrangements (as it did at Downhills) by recognising the role of the governing body, but at the same time seeks to have the deal signed, sealed and delivered in advance of the consultation.

A key word is the 'usually' in the passage in bold. Perhaps there is space here for the governing body to insist that the consultation includes alternatives to academy conversion including the school managing its own improvement in collaboration with Brent's School Improvement Service or some other agency, or forming a soft or hard federation with another school.

It is important that Brent Council steps in to offer Gladstone Park support in such an approach.

Brent Council Budget consultation dates announced

Brent Council Budget Consultation  dates were announced at Willesden Connect tonight. They are:

4th Feb 2.30-4.30 @ Brent Town Hall

7th Feb 7-9pm @ Paul Daisley Hall, Brent Town Hall

But Cllr Aslam Choudry said that there would not be much opportunity to influence the budget since it was pretty much a 'done deal'.

So that's okay then! 

Muhammed Butt promises to consult on Brent budget

Following my posting on the lack of consultation on the Brent Budget LINK, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has sent me this comment:

I can assure you that we will be consulting on the budget. I am formalising dates and times with the consultation team and will get back to you and we will let everyone know as soon as things have been set.

We have not been able to put the budget on the agenda due to the government giving us our funding settlement figures so late and they are still giving us the data in chunks which is making setting the budget process very difficult.

Everyone has the opportunity to use the soap box to highlight any issues and concerns to us at every forum and would encourage you to use that and you can always suggest topics of conversation for the forums.

We are always looking to find different formats and topics that will allow us to engage better with our residents.

Brighton Council sets out budget options

Further to the previous article I reproduce below the page on which the minority Green Council in Brighton and Hove is consulting on its budget.  Last year's consultation in Brent at the Area Consultative Forums consisted of  a presentation by Ann John and Muhammed Butt which was very broad sweep with few details or options. Audiences were rather frustrated as a result. Will the new leadership have a more detailed consultation in the new Brent Connects forums?

 Budget public event

The council is inviting anyone who lives in the city to come to a free event at Jubilee Library, Jubilee Square, Brighton on Wednesday, 26 September from 6.15pm to 8.30pm. Attendees will be able to have their say about how the council should plan for the future. 

Booking a place is essential, registration is free and only takes a few minutes. Please register using our budget public event booking form.

There are many ways you can get involved and have your say on the budget, find out more on our your money, your services, your say page and join the debate on twitter using #BHBudget.

Budget examples activity

During this event one of the activities will include looking at five broadly different ways the council could work.

You will be asked to consider 'what if the council used this way of working and how would it affect me?' As well as this it is worth considering how the different examples would affect others, such as:

• A single young professional, living in a shared flat in the city centre
• A single mother of a child aged 9, living on benefits
• A family of five - two working adults and three children aged 13, 7 and 3, living on the outskirts of Brighton
• An older couple living on their pensions

You can find out more about the examples by clicking on the links below. Each of these include suggestions of how the different ways of working may affect certain services and people.

• ’Just the basics’
  We provide only basic services and charge you for everything else you use
• ‘Prevention rather than Cure’
  We spend more now on tackling problems like anti-social behaviour before they cost more later on
• ‘Keeping services not cutting them’
  We deliver services tailored to individual needs, even if this means we will need to charge everyone more money
• ‘Partnership council’
  We deliver services through a partnership of the council, private sector & voluntary sector
• ‘Go for growth’ 
  We change policies and spend more to help grow the local economy

---

’Just the basics’

Aside from some services that it must undertake, the council would provide only basic services (like social care, bin collection, council housing) and charge for everything else as and when you want it. 

This would reduce the amount of money the council would need to spend to fund services and mean that council tax might be lower or, at least, would not increase.

Here are examples of the changes this might lead to: 

• Collecting rubbish less frequently, say fortnightly. If you needed rubbish or recycling taking away any sooner you would pay an extra fee for the disposal of each bag of rubbish or recycling.
  - “I’m surrounded by students who make loads of rubbish compared to what I put out to be collected”(Single mother)
• Increasing charges for leisure, library or cultural facilities.
  - “It used to cost us £x to go swimming together on a Saturday morning. Now it costs £y. That’s a lot, but in truth we can afford it” (Mother in the family)
• Charging for the use of public toilets such as those in pavilion gardens, and not providing others at all.
  - “I do get caught short now and again. It seems wrong to ask me to empty out my purse each time.” (Pensioner)

---

‘Prevention rather than cure’

The council focuses spending on services which work to stop behaviour or events that lead to higher costs for the council in the future. 

Long term, the prevention of these issues would reduce the overall financial burden on the council and public services in the city, but in the short term more expenditure might be needed. This may only be achievable by cutting back on less critical services until long term costs reduce. 

Here are examples of the changes this might lead to: 

• Spending more now on tackling anti-social behaviour, alcohol and substance misuse before these become expensive problems further down the line. For example, Community Support Officers could patrol parks to prevent and deal with anti-social behaviour. Similar to the government’s stop smoking campaigns, more resources could be put into helping people reduce drug and alcohol use.
  - “I spend a lot of time in the parks. I feel a lot safer seeing people on patrol.” (Pensioner)
• Talking with families and communities early to prevent or seek early resolution of cases of domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, anti-social behaviour, school exclusion, etc.
  - “This is a waste of money. Even if every resident’s problems were sorted out, there would always be more people turning up. People should sort out their own problems.” (Young professional)
• Working with health services and other partners to find ways to maintain people in their homes and communities for longer, avoiding the need for more expensive care.
  - “This has made a great difference to the quality of life of my parents, and, to be honest, a great difference to us in terms of not having to pay fees to nursing home.” (Wife in the family)

---

‘Keeping services not cutting them’

The council delivers all services on the basis of need without any extra charges. This means people paying for services they may not use but which are vital to others. 

To deliver all services for free would require an increase in overall revenue, including revenue from council tax. 

Here are examples of the changes this might lead to: 

• Children’s Centres that deliver more services free of charge.
  - “I don’t see why rich families with lots of children should be able to use Children’s Centres for free when they have the money to pay. It was their choice to have so many kids.” (Single mother)
• Health related gym passes.
  - “Why should I have to pay for other peoples gym passes, their health is nothing to do with me. (Young professional)
• Garden waste collection for all properties.
  - "I live in a flat and don't have a garden, why should my money go towards this service." (Pensioner)

---

‘Partnership council’

Services are still provided to businesses and residents but not necessarily delivered directly by the council. 

This could reduce the cost of those services to the council and council taxpayers.

The council would play a supportive role in making sure that services were delivered in a way that best suits the community and the city. 

Here are examples of the changes this might lead to: 

• Adult social care could be delivered through a combination of reduced council provision but increased private and voluntary sector organisation provision.
  - “I’m worried about ending up in a private care home after some of the things I’ve read.” (Pensioner)
• Neighbourhood councils could involve communities more in local decisions. Community organisations might then be invited to deliver services, for example, parks or street cleansing.
  - “I’d love to be involved in some of the decisions that affect me, but no-one listens to me at present.” (Single mother)
• Youth services could be provided by community/voluntary or private organisations working in partnership with the council.
  - “I’m involved in a youth club. I’m sure we could run some of these services better than what the council does.” (Teenager in family)

---

‘Go for growth’

The council re-directs more funding to help build the local economy. Spending on the transport system would ease congestion, for example. More new homes would be built to attract new investment. Loosening of planning regulations would enable swifter building of housing and business developments. Targeted business rate discounts could be introduced to make the city more attractive to investors. 

In the short term council income would be reduced which could endanger some basic city services like bin collection and libraries. 

In the longer term people should have more money to spend as the economy should thrive which in turn will create more jobs as businesses can take on more staff, which in turn leads to more growth. There would also be revenue from an increased number of council tax payers and extra business rates from more companies. 

Here are examples of the changes this might lead to: 

• Spend more money on better infrastructure to improve how people can travel around the city, which could help businesses develop.
  - "It takes a long time to get around the city in rush hours because of the congestion.” (Young professional)
• Invest more in affordable housing to attract people and businesses to the city.
  - “I just can’t find any decent jobs in Brighton, which is why I’m stuck in this one bedroom flat." (Single mother)
• A reduction in business rates to encourage big businesses to set up in the city.
  - “We have a pretty good life, but the worst thing about it is commuting up to London. I wish there were more better paid jobs in Brighton & Hove so I could spend more time with my kids.” (Husband in family)

---