Follow Natalie Bennett and sign the TeacherROAR declaration

It was good to see that Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, has signed the TeacherROAR declaration, as have I.  Most of the demands are Green Party policy:

The teacherROAR movement wants: an educational landscape where teachers are not denigrated and attacked by politicians and in the press; where teachers are praised, encouraged and supported to develop their practice; where education policy is evidence-based and not used as a political football; where the need for social justice and equality is placed at the heart of education policy; where the curriculum is progressive, broad, balanced and fit for the 21st Century; where learning is child-centered; where we are developing children to their full potential in all areas and not simply preparing them for work; where education is not treated as a marketable product with customers, consumers and products; where our children are not over-tested and among the most stressed in the western world; where our pay and conditions are improving and not under constant attack; and where teachers are respected and trusted professionals whose opinion is valued and listen to by politicians.

We the undersigned declare ourselves part of the teacherROAR movement and pledge to fight for a better, fairer education system.

To add your signature and comment follow this LINK

A parent who signed the declaration commented:

As a parent, I'd like my children to be taught by people who know that they are respected, supported, and listened to. I'd like my children to be tested, when they are tested, in ways which put their needs before the government's political need for league tables. I want my children to be prepared to live lives as engaged citizens, not passive consumers, and I want the education system to be ringfenced to protect it from the whims of successive Secretaties of State and whatever political or personal agendas they may bring with them.

A teacher wrote:

Teachers are facing a concerted campaign of vilification and bullying. This government (with the support of many in the media, right-wing think tanks etc) is determined to atomise and demoralise teachers. They want to make us cheaper to hire and fire, because this will render us more exploitable and education more profitable. Teachers must stand together to resist these attacks, and we must support anyone else opposed to the increasing privatisation and commodification of the public sector.

Brent residents win £303k compensation over Preston Manor Covenants debacle

A  Settlement Agreement was reached just before Christmas on a long running battle between Preston Manor Academy Trust and Brent Council and a group of local residents led by Mr Len Gordon.

Residents had objected to the Trust and Council's application to the  Upper Chamber of the Lands Tribunal for the lifting of  Covenants that restricted the building of primary school classrooms on the Preston Manor site.

Residents were opposed to further expansion of the site on grounds of noise and light nuisance as well as increased traffic but the school and Brent Council went ahead even after the Covenants has been drawn to their attention.

Richard Barrett, Operational Director for Brent's Regeneration and Growth Department explained in his witness statement that, after a risk assessment, the Council decided to go ahead with the building work because they might otherwise have had £7m of government funding clawed back. They thought that it was unlikely that the Covenants would be upheld by the Upper Tribunal and were conscious of the need to provide more primary places.

However in his statement Barrett also stated:

I have to accept that the late discovery of these Covenants indicates that officers within the Children and Families Directorate did not undertake due diligence by carrying out title checks. In simple terms, it seems to me that they failed to appreciate that the land was not owned by the Council, but (because the school had Foundation status) was in fact owned freehold by the school. A full title search was undertaken by the Council's Regeneration and Major Projects (Property Unit) (who had by them taken over the project), in December 2010/January 2011 and this led us to discover the restrictions in the titles which permitted development but not of accommodation for a school.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the Objectors withdrawing their objections to the Applicaton by the Trust and Council for modified wording to the Covenants.

The Objectors will share a payment of £303,000 made to Brent Council by the Trusti n a full and final settlement of their entitlement and claims for compensation and any 'loss and damage howsoever arising out of the construcxtion of the primary schools and the temporary classrooms and their subsequent uses, and the other uses of the Land made by the Governing Body and the Trust...'

The Settlement Agreement includes publication of the schools' letting policy on its website alongside emergency contact numbers, highlighted conditions for people hiring the facilities to have regard to households neighbouring the school, the school's attendandance at local safer neighbourhood meetings, and facilities for the public to attend Governing Body meetings.

The Trust will update its Travel Plan and submit it to the Council's travel plan officer. The Transportation Unit will review traffic and parking problems in the area and meet with local residents on ameliorative measures.

The Covenants will be amended to allow current existing permitted educational uses with an entitilement to make 'minor changes and ancillary changes to the existing buioldings and grounds.' The Objectors waive all claims arisng out of the existing temporary classrooms on the site 'up to the end of January 2015'.

This has clearly been an expensive and time consuming process. On December 13th (before the Settlement Agreement was made) I put the following FoI request to Brent Council:

Dear Brent Borough Council,

Please supply the following information:

1. The total amount invoiced to Brent Council to date by Druces LLP for the restrictive covenant action taken on behalf of the governing body of Preston Manor School at the Land Tribunal.
2. The amount of Brent Council officer time (hours and/or cost) spent on the Land Tribunal case.
3. The expected compensation costs to be paid by Brent Council in settling the case with the appellants.
4. Any other costs to be paid by Brent Council in addition to the above.

Wembley's famous dame remembered

Guest blog with a seasonal touch by local historian Philip Grant 

[Image courtesy of Terry Lomas and the British Music Hall Society]

 One of the traditional features of the festive season is the pantomime, and the slapstick comedy “dame” is often a highlight of these shows. Did you know that Wembley was once home to a man who did much to influence how the “dame” role is played? As you pass along Forty Lane you may have seen a blue plaque commemorating Arthur Lucan, and at this appropriate time of year a new illustrated article has appeared on the Brent Archives online Local History Resources site which tells his story. 

You can read “Arthur Lucan – the man who was Old Mother Riley” HERE

A taste of Old Mother Riley with some evocative period background

 

Wembley, and the rest of Brent, does matter, so enjoy its history, and carry on working for a better present and future. Seasons greetings to Martin and all the readers of his “blog”, and best wishes for a happy, healthy and hopefully more just 2014.
Philip Grant.

Annoying Iain Duncan Smith

Apparently this image of the true impact of Coalition policies has been annoying Iain Duncan Smith over the holiday.

Good.

It has been retweeted thousands of times on Twitter and shared on Facebook.

Please do your bit to annoy Iain Duncan Smith

Image Source www.church-poverty.org

Greens: Bring rail back into public hands following more fare rises

As rail companies in England announced fare rises for 2014,  commuters and their household budgets received more bad news.

Firms are allowed to put fares up by much as 2% above the agreed price-increase figure which, for 2014, is 3.1%.

Among the fares announced were annual seasons for travel between Reading in Berkshire and London, which is up 3.23% to  £4,088. and travellers from Dover Priory and Deal to London see annual fares rising 3.04% to £5,012.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said:

This latest price hike is going to put a dampener on many commuters' Christmas, and be a boost to support for Green MP Caroline Lucas's private members' bill calling for the railways to be brought back into public hands.

Travellers face overcrowded journeys as standard on too many routes, on the most crowded trains in Europe.

They face immensely costly journeys, and they know that more than £1bn of their cash is going into the 'black hole' of privatisation inefficiencies, plus billions more in declared and undeclared
government subsidies.

Casual users face a confusing fare structure that often leaves them paying more than they need or trapped with penalty fares due to confusion.

It's time to say enough is enough: privatisation has failed, we need to bring the railways back into public hands.

Is retail really the answer to Brent's economic development?

London Designer Outlet, Christmas Eve, 11.30am

If you wanted a little bit of peace and quiet away from the last minute Christmas shopping crowds then Wembley's London Designer Outlet (the LDO) was the place to be this morning. I popped in to see how things were going after visiting Wembley Library - the library was more crowded!

Of course the LDO has only just opened (but so has the library) and the weather forecast was poor (but that affects library users too). The library is for local people while the LDO is intended to attract crowds from within the M25 so transport disruption affects the latter more.

Despite this one would have expected more shoppers. The store doing the briskest trade was the Tesco Local just outside the LDO on Wembley Hill Road. There is still time for things to pick up and perhaps the post-Christmas sales will help, although of course products are heavily discounted anyway.  However there are vital questions to be raised.

I had a sharp little exchange with Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, earlier this week when I criticised his frequent tweets urging people to shop at the LDO - I suggested he had becomes its PR mouthpiece. He retorted that it provided jobs for local people and Cllr Pavey flew to his support accusing me of having no sense of fun and praising the LDO as a great addition to the local economy. The initimable tweeter PukkahPubjabi joined in, asking how many of the jobs were on zero hours contracts and the London Living Wage.

I responded: 

We have different views on what constitutes a viable, sustainable local economy. Reliance on retail is not the answer.

And that perhaps sums up the differences between me and Brent Labour on this. At the beginning of the Quintain regeneration I suggested that an emphasis on retail in a period of recession and debt was not a good idea and that the kind of jobs that would result were not of sufficient quality for our young people. Brent Greens put forward a suggestion for a Green Enterprise zone in the regenerated area, offering incentives for green industries to be set up, contributing to combating climate change and with pay-offs for residents in terms of energy saving technologies and adaptations.  There could be links with local colleges for training and apprenticeship schemes. The result would be skilled jobs of high social value contributing to the wider economy.

This is of course based on clear differences in our assumptions about future economic development. In the face of diminishing natural resources and the need to cut back on carbon emissions as climate change accelerates. Greens are looking for more sustainable economic models not linked to every increasing consumption and debt.  Socially useful production geared to needs not wants. A more equal society with less division between the rich and the poor.

Labour is still signed up to the neoliberal model with their challenge to capitalism little more than trying to give it a human face. They do not question the strategy of expanding the economy through consumption and borrowing. Despite the 2008 crisis they have little to say about the reform of banks or the City of London, reducing the ratio between the lowest and highest paid in corporations, or ending the privatisation of the public sector. On a local level Muhammed Butt doesn't recognise the contradictions of pushing discounted designer shopping to a population suffering income decline and thus easy prey for the loan sharks he is pledged to control.

That difference is what makes me an eco-socialist within the Green Party.

When we submitted our views on Quintain's and Brent Council's retail vision for the Wembley Park regeneration we described it as high risk but at the time it did include social provision such as family housing, health centre swimming pool and a new primary school. These remain to be built and would surely be of more benefit to Brent residents than retail units offering 60% off kitchenware!

Make your views known on Landlord Licensing extension

Brent Council is consulting on a licensing scheme for landlords in the private sector. Although  this could be very useful in terms of ensuring the safety and quality of premises, the fair treatment of tenants and might help with issues such as furniture dumping when tenancies change, there are concerns from some that it could be used in conjunction with UKBA to check on the immigration status of tenants. This could result in driving landlords underground and thus defeat the main object of the scheme.

This is Brent Council's communication:

The council already operates a Mandatory Licensing Scheme that covers larger houses with multiple occupation. We are consulting on proposals to introduce Additional Licensing Scheme that would cover smaller houses with multiple occupation across the borough as well as a Selective Scheme that would cover all privately rented homes.

The selective scheme is proposed for three wards – Harlesden, Willesden Green and Wembley Central but we would also be interested to hear your views on whether it should cover a wider area.

Please click on the relevant link below to give us your views:

Tenants and residents’ survey

Landlords and managing agents’ survey

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.