The case for rethinking the Queen's Park traffic scheme engagement process put to Brent Cabinet

 

 

Alasdair Balfour, a Queen's Park resident presented a petition to Brent Cabinet today setting out the case for halting the current engagement process:

Background

My name is Alastair Balfour, and I live on Chevening Road in Queen’s Park. A lovely street, in a lovely neighbourhood. I should support the MP Smarter Travel (“MPST”) traffic proposals as they appear to benefit me. But having experienced the utter chaos that the current temporary traffic restrictions have wrought on the wider neighbourhood, it is evident that the proposals are ill conceived, unfair and simply push the problem onto less fortunate neighbours in the ward. These trial schemes have created division among residents and gambled with the health and safety of thousands of children who attend schools on the boundary roads. Sadly, after years of false starts, real damage is being done to our community and to the trust they have in Brent’s approach to this topic.

In the weeks since the MPST meeting on November 4th, our petition has had over 1,400 signatures, a leaflet was produced and delivered to over 2,000 residents, a video has been made and circulated on social media, and newspapers are beginning to pick up the story. This has all been done by volunteers who feel let down, and who care for their neighbourhood. This outpouring of opposition is years in the making.

The MPST engagement is so flawed that it cannot produce reliable results. The catchment thinking is too narrow, the engagement materials were confusing, the online questionnaire was changed mid-engagement and never effectively communicated as promised. There was clearly no technical analysis which stands behind the proposals. And even Councillors and residents benefitting from the schemes oppose the options.

MPST are not traffic management experts, their mission is modal shift and nothing else. They lack clear objectives and indicators of success or failure. And without proper stakeholder definitions, they do not know even who they are solving for.

Proposed Way Forward

We understand that this is a highly complex issue, and we do not have all the answers. But it is patently clear that if this cabinet is serious about improving the situation it needs to start from square one and go back to basics. ⁠This requires joined up thinking, reflecting all stakeholders and doing hard work first. We must stop wasting money on projects that are doomed to fail. The skills and resources exist within the community to assist Brent in developing a project roadmap, defining the problems, crafting solutions, thus ensuring transparent engagement and community support. These offers of help and expertise have been rejected in the past. We ask whether Brent will accept them now, especially when budgets are so tight and resources so constrained.

All community groups (including residents associations) have always argued for wider consultation and a genuinely transparent cooperative process. There is a clear view of how to deliver success which can be shared with councillors at the appropriate time. But this must be done with total transparency, coordination, and consensus. Who better to facilitate this than the residents in the community. We understand the complex trade-offs required.

In conclusion, I want to thank you Cllr Butt for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and for confirming that this petition will be considered as part of this engagement process. But if you are serious about finding a path forward, we now need action over and above telling us that we have been heard. I am therefore requesting a commitment from the cabinet to the following three points:

1. Stop the flawed MPST engagement (it is so tainted that it only fuels anger)

2. Halt all hyper local traffic schemes until a data-led, wider area impact assessment can be provided

3. Sit down with local thought leaders to i) define the most pressing traffic problems (focused on boundary roads and schools), ii) agree the process roadmap which the entire community can support and commit real resources behind and iii) to use utmost transparency in all behaviour, data sharing and communication.

We have mobilised a significant amount of support from across the community in recent weeks, and we owe those neighbours an update on how the cabinet responds.

We want to bring everyone together to support the council’s objectives for a healthy neighbourhood – who would not? But we must learn from past mistakes, plan properly and deliver improvements for the many and not just a select few.

The response from Cllr Krupa Sheth, the Lead Cabinet Member responsible for the  environment can be seen at 06.20 on the video above, Queen's Park councillor Neil Nerva at 08.17 and and Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt at 10.25. You can make you own minds up as to whether they commit to the three points raised by Alasdair Balfour.

After the meet a local resident said:

Many residents watching online were bemused when Cllr Butt said at the end that Brent had 43 or 44 successful Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in place.. One said "We look forward to seeing his list. But I can only imagine he's referring to School Streets? To our knowledge, four years on from the first set of attempts, Brent has just one LTN running - in Harlesden and Stonebridge. A status update on that one was expected last April but has not yet appeared. Four of the first batch were implemented but had to be withdrawn before the trial ended  because they were not working.

Later attempts at designing a feasible scheme that could gain community support in Kilburn and Queen's Park Wards have failed - and the current "Engagement" has all the flaws in the speech given this morning" 

Brent admits single Scrutiny Committee failures and proposes a change to two committee system

Less than two years after the adoption of the controversial decision to have just one Scrutiny Committee in Brent proposals are to go before the Cabinet to have two Scrutiny Committees. If adopted this would go to the May Council AGM.

The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:

.        The purpose of moving to a single Scrutiny Committee meeting on a frequent basis was to enable a more consistent, holistic and streamlined approach to all scrutiny activities commissioned by a single committee. The introduction of a single committee to replace the previous four themed scrutiny committees also made a considerable saving in terms of member allowances. Prior to May 2014 each scrutiny committee had a chair, vice-chair and six members with respective allowances. The annual potential cost of each committee was £38,020 in member allowances, making a total for the whole scrutiny function of potentially £152,080. The current cost of member allowances for a single scrutiny committee is potentially £36,190 making a potential saving of £115,890 on the previous model. These costings are maximum potential costs only as members already in receipt of a special responsibility allowance would not be entitled to a second special responsibility allowance for their scrutiny role. The costings nonetheless provide a useful illustration of the indicative costs implications. 


.        It was considered that operating separate scrutiny committees produced a fragmented approach to scrutiny with each committee developing its own work programme which did not always reflect the cross-cutting aspects of complex policy issues. It was also felt that a single committee would be a more effective use of the finite officer resources available to support scrutiny given the pressure on resources. 


.        However after nearly two years of operating the single Scrutiny Committee structure, the anticipated advantages have not outweighed the logistical issues of monthly meetings and has resulted in a concentration of scrutiny activities into a relatively small group of members and officers. 


.        Having one committee responsible for all scrutiny activities has meant that the committee has not developed in depth specialism and understanding of services or key policy agendas. With a wide variety of issues being considered at each meeting the agendas can be incoherent and this makes it difficult to develop continuity on specific subjects or issues between committee meetings. 


.         In particular the move away from themed committees has resulted in less active engagement of service areas in working constructively with scrutiny members as there is less perceived ownership of one corporate Scrutiny Committee. This has both distanced service departments from scrutiny and meant that less members overall are activity engaged in debate and discussion on the policy issues and performance of Council services. In practice the current model means that only eight members are actively engaged in scrutiny discussion on a regular basis (although other members who are not part of the formal scrutiny committee do contribute to task groups). Previously around 30 non–executive members regularly contributed to a scrutiny committee at least once a quarter. 


.        The single Scrutiny Committee model has also impacted on the development of a productive scrutiny relationship with statutory partners, particularly in relation to the duties of the Council to scrutinise the provision of local health services and partnership work on community safety. It has proved difficult to accommodate a consistent work programme on health issues, children’s services and adult social care within the single work programme. This has limited the development of an in depth understanding of these complex and critical service areas, which was noted in the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection of Brent’s Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s services. 


.        The disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen. Brent is still the only Council in London to operate a single scrutiny committee structure, although three others have a main committee with themed sub-committees. However as the Council enters the next phase of change with the development of the Brent 2020 Vision and the programme of outcome based reviews, it is vital that we reconsider the most appropriate scrutiny structure which will facilitate the effective engagement of members in shaping the future direction of the Council via the Scrutiny function. This is particularly important given the political composition of the Council and the challenging nature of the issues the borough faces. 


The report goes on to propose a two committee structure to remedy the situation after setting out the role of Scrutiny:

 

.        There are a number of key objectives which any new scrutiny structure should be designed to achieve. These are:-

·      To enable non-executive members to develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues which supports effective and constructive scrutiny of performance and decision-making across Council services and meets the statutory requirements of scrutiny. 


·      Maximises the number of Members engaged in regular scrutiny activities and enables non-executive members to contribute to the shaping of Council policy at the right point in the policy development process. 


·      A structure that covers both the breadth of internal and external issues but also provides sufficient scope for the committee to develop specialisation and become experts in their subject areas. 


·      The frequency of scrutiny meetings is aligned to the decision-making timetable and enables high quality reports to be produced with scrutiny input made at the right time in the development of options and proposals. 


·      Can take a holistic view of partnership, performance and resourcing issues in relation to the individual service or issue under scrutiny. 


·      Enables clear accountability of Lead members and senior officers for decisions and service performance. 


·      The scrutiny function should be responsive to the views and concerns of service users and residents, actively seeking their opinions to shape their work programme. 


·      Is properly resourced and supported by senior officers and services within the Council and the contribution of scrutiny members is a valued part in the process of defining the Council’s future policy direction. 


.        3.15  In order to achieve these objectives it is therefore proposed that the future Scrutiny committee structure should, as set out below, be more closely aligned to the organisational structure of the Council as well as providing more opportunity for in-depth scrutiny.

 
Proposed Scrutiny Structure 


The proposal is to have two scrutiny committees combining the following remits:- 


·      Community and Well being Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover Housing, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local health services and major reconfigurations of provision. It would also scrutinise the children and young people’s service, partnership work undertaken by the Children’s Trust and scrutiny of Safeguarding arrangements. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). The four voting education co-opted members and the two non voting education co-opted members would be part of this committee. 

·      Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover corporate resources, (including Customer Services, Policy, Partnerships and Performance, Procurement and IT) as well as regeneration, environment and community safety. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). 

The indicative cost implications in respect of special responsibility allowances are set out below. As previously stated, however, these costings are potential maximum costs only and actual costs are likely to be lower as some of the members will already be in receipt of a special responsibility allowance. 
In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Allowance Scheme, a 1% uplift in allowances has been factored in. On this basis the total potential costs are £40,614 higher than the current scrutiny structure. 


2 x Chairs allowance at £14,140
2 x Vice Chairs at £5,050
12 x SRA allowance for committee members at £3,202

Total

£28,280 £10,100 £38,424

£76,804

  

The full report can be found HERE

Unintended consequences of counter-terrorism legislation

Thanks to Robin Richardson for forwarding the following extract which I think contributes to our discussion on this blog about the Prevent Strategy and its impact in Brent.

 

Unintended consequences of counter-terrorism legislation

Extract from Living with Difference: diversity, community and the common good, the report of the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life, published on 7 December 2015.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________

8.22      Counter-terrorism legislation and strategies are a proper responsibility for all governments and have rightly been a priority in Britain and other western countries since the outrages in New York (2001), Madrid (2004) and London (2005). More recently, major atrocities have included murders in Woolwich (2013), Paris (2015) and Tunisia (2015). Governments have a clear responsibility to prevent such outrages. Also, as with the whole spectrum of crime and disorder, they have leadership tasks in relation to fear of terrorism, and to fostering security not only as objective fact but also as subjective feeling. According to the Pew Research Center, between 2011 and 2015 the percentage saying they are very concerned about Islam-related extremism in their country increased by 38 percentage points in France, 29 points in Spain, 21 points in the United Kingdom, 20 points in Germany and 17 points in the United States.[1] Within the overall pattern of public opinion in Britain it has been found that fear of Islam-related terrorism is higher amongst older people and people living outside London, and in particular parts of the electorate.[2]

8.23     The ways in which anti-terrorism policies operate in practice can have, however, unintended consequences. In particular, significant numbers of citizens may come to feel they are viewed as Other, namely as people who do not truly belong and cannot be trusted, 'them' rather than 'us', suspects or potential suspects, not ordinary citizens with the same values as everyone else. Counter-terrorism policies and measures may then not only fail to achieve their objectives but actually may make matters worse, such that both terrorism and the fear of terrorism increase, and both security and sense of security are diminished.[3] At the present time it is Muslim communities in Britain that are most directly and obviously affected. All people, however, are of course affected by increases in fear and feelings of insecurity, as also all people in a society are affected by the ways in which majorities and minorities see and approach each other.

8.24     To decrease the danger of unintended harmful consequences in counter-terrorism measures against Islam-related terrorism, the following five points need to be carefully considered:

a)      The government needs to engage with a wide range of academic theory, research and scholarship about the nature and causes of terrorism. Amongst other things, this means it should encourage and promote, not seek to limit, freedom of enquiry, speech and expression, and should not loosely use words and concepts which scholarship shows to be controversial and unclear. Such words and concepts include 'ideology', 'radicalisation', 'extremism' and 'Islamism'.[4] 

b)      The government needs to meet and engage with a wide range of Muslim groups and organisations, and to show that it understands, even if it does not agree with, the views about the nature and causes of terrorism that they hold. It cannot otherwise gain the trust and confidence of significant opinion leaders, and therefore cannot otherwise rely on their support and assistance. Their support and assistance are essential, however, if counter-terrorism strategies are to be successful. In its selection of organisations with which to engage the government must guard against the perception that it is operating with a simplistic good Muslims/bad Muslims distinction, or between ‘mainstream moderates’ and ‘violent or non-violent extremists’.

c)       There is no causal or inevitable link between conservative or orthodox theological and moral views on the one hand and propensity to violent and criminal behaviour on the other. Nor, more fundamentally, is there a simple, one-way causal link between a worldview, ideology or narrative on the one hand and specific actions and behaviours on the other.[5]

d)      There is no simplistic us/them distinction or clash between western or Enlightenment values on the one hand and the values of other cultures, countries and civilisations on the other, nor between Christian values and those of other religions.

e)      Political leaders should seek not only to promote debate and deliberation about the causes of terrorism but also to challenge misunderstandings and negative stereotypes in the population at large and in mass-circulation newspapers – they have a duty to lead public opinion, and not only to reduce fear and insecurity in the majority population but also to give principled reassurance and moral support to groups and communities which feel vulnerable to violence or discrimination.

8.25     These concerns were well summarised in the September 2015 report of Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The report listed 15 issues raised by the government’s new measures on countering extremism and commented that the issues matter because ‘they concern the scope of UK discrimination, hate speech and public order laws, the limits that the state may place on some of our most basic freedoms, the proper limits of surveillance, and the acceptability of imposing suppressive measures without the protections of the criminal law’. The report then issued the very important warning that ‘if the wrong decisions are taken, the new law risks provoking a backlash in affected communities, hardening perceptions of an illiberal or Islamophobic approach, alienating those whose integration into British society is already fragile and playing into the hands of those who, by peddling a grievance agenda, seek to drive people further towards extremism and terrorism’.[6] There is a severe danger, to put the same point in different words, that the vision of a society at ease with itself, sketched at the start of chapter 3 of this report, and frequently referred to throughout the following chapters, will be harmed not helped by government action. It could be harder not easier, as a consequence of government action, for the citizens of the UK to live with their differences. It is essential that forthcoming proposals on countering extremism should be scrutinised with the maximum possible care and amended accordingly if appropriate, and that subsequent operations when they are enacted should be monitored with a very high degree of diligence.

Bibliography

Anderson, David (2015) The Terrorism Acts in 2014: report of the Independent Reviewer on the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006. London: Williams Lea Group.

Choudhury, Tufyal and Helen Fenwick (2011) The impact of counter-terrorism measures on Muslim communities. EHRC Research Report no. 72. Manchester: Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Christmann, Kris (2012) Preventing Religious Radicalisation and Violent Extremism: a systematic review of the research evidence. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

Francis, Matthew (2012) ‘What causes radicalisation? Main lines of consensus in recent research’, Radicalisation Research, 24 January. http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/guides/francis-2012-causes-2/

Hickman, Mary J, Lyn Thomas, Henri C. Nickels and Sara Silvestri (2012) 'Social cohesion and the notion of suspect communities: a study of the experiences and impacts of being suspect for Irish communities and Muslim communities in Britain', Critical Studies on Terrorism, 5/ 1, 89-106.

Home Office (2015) Counter-Extremism Strategy. London: Home Office.

King, Michael and Donald M. Taylor (2011) ‘The Radicalization of Homegrown Jihadists: A Review of Theoretical Models and Social Psychological Evidence’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 23/4, 602-622.

Poushter, Jacob (2015) Extremism Concerns Growing in West and Predominantly Muslim Countries: Worries Especially Widespread in Western Europe and the U.S. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

YouGov (2014) ‘YouGov Nato’. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1hdxa38zho/InternalResults_140801_NATO_W.pdf

Notes and references  

---

[1] Poushter (2015), p. 2.

[2] A 2014 survey of 2,083 British adults found that 79 per cent of respondents deemed Islamic terrorism to pose an important threat to the country (rising to over 90 per cent of Conservative and UKIP supporters and those over age 60). 46 per cent of respondents thought the threat posed was critical. YouGov (2014).

[3] See, for example, Mohammed (2015); Hamid (2015).

[4] See Harris, Bisset and Weller (2015).

[5] For reviews of various proposed models of radicalisation which highlight the multiplicity of factors that can be involved, see, for example, Francis (2012); Christmann (2012); King and Taylor (2011). The Radicalisation Research website produces and collates research on these issues, http://www.radicalisationresearch.org/.

[6] Anderson (2015), p. 65.

 

Camden seeking Sustainability Engagement Officer

Readers will be aware of the cuts made in Brent Council's environmental department. Interesting then to see this job advertised in neighbouring Camden:

SUSTAINABILITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICER

Sustain our community

Our team

Sustainability and Green Space is a busy, high-profile team working across the organisation and with external partners and the wider community, currently based at 5 St Pancras Square.

The role

You’ll lead on the design, delivery and promotion of green community engagement initiatives and events and develop partnership approaches aimed at increasing green actions and green activism amongst Camden residents and communities. The key focus of the role will be on domestic energy efficiency and affordable warmth, air quality and food growing and nature conservation. You will be responsible for coordinating the provision of green advice, information and resources through a variety of channels.

In collaboration with the communications team, you’ll be responsible for managing the design, project management and promotion of green community engagement initiatives, ensuring their successful delivery through cross working within the council and with partners, leading internal and external project teams. You’ll also provide or commission advice and training on green issues to internal staff and the wider community.

Applying analysis and intelligence skills, you’ll conduct research on best practice and the latest thinking relating to community engagement, synthesising findings, contributing to proposals and recommendations that fit the organisational and strategic context in Camden.

Full details HERE

Greens call for a People's Constitutional Convention following revolutionary levels of engagement in Independence Referendum

Votes at 16 Campaign reaction the day after

From the Green Party of England and Wales

Following the defeat of the “Yes” campaign in the Scottish referendum on independence, the Green Party would like to congratulate all those who were involved in mounting such an inspirational ‘Yes’ campaign.

The ‘Yes’ campaign has played a vital role in throwing-open questions about the support for our current constitutional settlement – questions that will not go away simply because of a defeat for the “Yes” campaign. The debate triggered by the referendum has illustrated how people across the country have been left feeling unrepresented and neglected by Westminster policies and politics.

It is clear that the “business as usual” approach to politics favoured by the three main parties is no longer resonating with the voting electorate.

There is now a real opportunity to mount a serious reassessment of our political system – including a debate over the introduction of a written Constitutional Convention and Bill of Rights.

Natalie Bennett, Green Party leader, said:

I congratulate the 'yes' campaigners in their positive, hopeful campaign that attracted so many to a message of real change. Despite the result, however, it is clear that real, significant constitutional change is now certain - in Scotland, and the rest of the UK.

The Coalition Parties and Labour have promised the people of Scotland 'devo-max', and many 'no' voters will have made their choice on that promise. They have to deliver on that; and those changes will also mean there has to be political change in other parts of the UK, and particularly at the Westminster parliament.

Long overdue political reform is clearly now on the public agenda. The kind of party stitch-up that saw Lords reform fall apart in this parliament cannot be allowed.

It's nearly 100 years since we had significant constitutional reform in Westminster - when women got the vote. We cannot afford for the future of our democracy to get to that anniversary in 1918 without significant change.

Yesterday Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion write this Open Letter to Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Miliband:

Whatever the outcome of today’s referendum about the future governance of Scotland, there seems to be a strong consensus that nothing will ever quite be the same again. People in Scotland have been granted their right to be heard and have used the opportunity to imagine all kinds of positive futures.
Alongside the official Yes and No campaigns, we have seen the growth of genuine grassroots movements, giving everyone a voice. Across the nation, people previously disengaged from formal politics have been passionately debating what matters to them – all because they have a decision to make in which their individual vote really will influence the outcome.

For many of these people, voting had previously become merely an exercise in democracy rather than true democracy – casting a vote made little tangible difference to the outcome of elections, let alone their day to day lives.  The referendum has newly enfranchised them because every vote counts.  It’s also invited a whole new generation of young people to shape their own futures.

We have a unique opportunity, at this point in our history, to learn from what has happened during the referendum campaign. To recognise that behind the ever declining turn out in General Elections, especially amongst young people, the disillusionment and distrust, there is another story. One in which people are not disengaged from politics, simply from a political system that is not good at listening, that conspires to keep people relatively powerless and is designed to protect the interests of a small, self-interested and wealthy elite.

You did a brave and bold thing, ceding some of your power via a referendum.
You have also made promises, in the event of a No vote, to devolve more powers to Scotland – a welcome move that that has wider implications. The next steps must not be decided without full and proper consultation with everyone affected.

So I hope you will be braver still and demonstrate a genuine commitment to democracy by supporting calls for a People’s Constitutional Convention. A Convention to explore, discuss, debate and inspire. To tackle the democratic crisis that has left far too many people feeling unrepresented, neglected and alienated by Westminster.

A continuation of the conversation that has begun in Scotland – and England and Wales and Northern Ireland – about a fairer voting system, an elected House of Lords, job sharing for MPs, lowering the voting age, giving local communities and local authorities more power, including via local referenda and citizens initiatives, more regional government and total recall for elected politicians.

It’s an idea that’s already being championed the Electoral Reform Society, Open Democracy, Compass, Involve, Democratic Audit and the chairman of House of Commons’ Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amongst others.

Above all, it would demonstrate a genuine commitment to real democracy and embody the principle that power flows upwards from the people, not down from a centralised state. Scotland has shown that this is the way to build engagement in the decisions that affect all of our lives – by respecting, trusting and listening. This is also the way to give people hope again.

I hope you will join me in supporting a People’s Constitutional Convention as the way forward.

A petition calling for A People's Constitutional Convention is now up on the Change.Org website LINK

Grant offered to gather young people's views on health engagement

From Health Watch Brent

Health Watch Brent - Gathering Views Small Grants

Health Watch Brent are awarding grants of up to £200 to local organisations and community groups to help gather views on key areas for health and social care services in Brent. E.g.:

1. What services young people you engage use (doctors, clinics,family support services etc) 
2. The perceived quality of such services
3. How they can be improved
   

These grants can be used to cover the cost of engaging young people (e.g. via 30 a minute focus group). This could include room hire, printing, or even covering volunteer/staff expenses. 

The objective of Gathering Views is to encourage people to share their views via our Healthwatch survey.  Full details will be outlined soon. Please complete the expression of interest form to apply for this grant: http://goo.gl/Kq20DM 

For further information, please contact membership@healthwatchbrent.co.uk / 07825 215 652