Concerns remain over leafleting after Scrutiny discussion

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

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

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

He said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to new leader from a Labour Party member

Graham Durham has written this open letter to Cllr Muhammed Butt, the new leader of Brent Council.

Dear Mo,

Thank you for your telephone call of 9 May 2012 in which you invited me to vote for you as Leader of the Council at the Brent Labour Party hustings on 10 May.

As you know I am opposed to the Brent  Labour Group record over the last two years of implementing the Tory /Lib Dem government cuts and thus severely damaging the life prospects of many of the most vulnerable people in Brent. Naturally I was anxious to know how you would change matters and specifically how you would propose to make the Tory/Lib Dem cuts you made clear you are committed to over the next two years 

I was pleased  to hear your response on the question of libraries which I recorded.You said

'I feel we handled libraries very badly.I always wanted to consider partnership with community groups as Camden Council has done and was blocked by Ann John who  insisted we had to be seen to be backing officers and closing the six libraries.This will change if I am Leader.'

On future budget cuts you said

'We have far too many senior officers in Brent ,a record number of Directors on very high pay and they all build empires of Assistant Directors.I think we could save £3 million a  year  on these costs by 2015 '

Whilst I do not wholly agree with these two proposals I did concede that they represented progress from the intransigence and hostility to community groups displayed by Ann John and senior officers over the last two years .As promised  I advised Labour Party members I know of your views and asked them to consider if the changes you promised were sufficient to enable them to vote for you as Leader.

You have become Leader of Brent Council  at a time when working  people across  Europe  are realising that the disastrous policy of austerity is leading to impoverishment and misery everywhere.Voters in France and Greece have realised that the solutions of  cuts in services and basic benefits and pensions are incapable of creating jobs and protecting a reasonable standard of living for working people.

In Brent we have seen the extraordinary GLA vote in which Labour heavily  defeated the Lib Dems in every single ward of Brent Central - a great opportunity exists for us to remove Sarah Teather and cuts agenda at the next General Election.

You will need to be resolute in challenging Brent Council officers on every aspect of their work.In particular Gareth Daniel,Chief Executive, must be reigned in and told to stop spreading government cuts propaganda to Brent Council staff.

I am sure that the local newspaper, the Brent and Kilburn Times, has misquoted you in stating that you now support library closures and the matter is closed. I do not believe that you would have completely reversed the promises you made to Party members during your leadership campaign nine days ago.

I know that Brent SOS Libraries Campaign have written to you asking for  an urgent meeting and I look forward to discussing this issue with you then.Labour should be embracing local campaigners not treating them with disdain.

On a wider programme Brent Fightback want to work with Brent Labour Council in opposing Tory/Lib Dem cuts.We have also requested a meeting to discuss how to work together to resist  NHS Cuts such as the closure of Central Middlesex hospital  as well as local government cuts.

I look forward to meeting you to discuss further co-operation 

Best wishes 

Graham Durham

Helga the revanchist ignores regime change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Arnold: Consider the wider impact of academy conversion

Cllr Mary Arnold,  Lead Member for Children and Families, London Borough of Brent has made the following contribution to Queens Park Community School's debate about academy conversion:


Brent Council is committed to continue to work collaboratively and inclusively with its Family of Schools which is a ‘mixed economy’ of maintained community and foundation schools, including a range of faith schools together with four sponsor academies and more recently three ‘converter’ academies.

The government’s school reform legislation, the huge reduction in capital spending just at a time when population increases demand school expansion in Brent (and London-wide) and the diversion of funding away from local authorities towards academies is changing the education landscape and putting significant pressure on local authorities. Brent will continue to lobby the government on the following issues

 The central importance of local authorities in the strategic planning of school places and Special Educational Needs arrangements ,the regulation of fair admissions and the development of an authority wide school improvement strategy

 The vital role that elected members and local authority governors play in a locally accountable, democratic system

 The need for fair funding allocation for all schools which does not disadvantage maintained
schools in favour of academies and free schools

 The need for a realistic level of capital funding which will address the London-wide shortage
of school places

The government has created financial incentives for schools converting to Academy status.However conversion means the Local Authority’s budget is reduced through a topslice by the Department for Education and this inhibits its ability to deliver statutory requirements particularly impacting on vulnerable children.

In Brent we have much to be proud of and a strong record to maintain:

 education outcomes are continuing to improve at all key stages
 attainment at Key Stage 4 is in the top 25% of authorities nationally within the context of high levels of deprivation
 the gap in outcomes for under-achieving groups in Brent is closing
 permanent exclusions are reducing year on year

This represents fantastic work undertaken by individual schools. However, it isn’t the whole picture. What is special about Brent and has been a key feature of success is the co-operation across Brent’s education community – schools and the local authority – and the sense of collective responsibility.

It is vitally important to maintain high levels of collaboration across Brent’s education community and avoid the risks of fragmentation from academy conversions. The Local Authority continues to have key statutory duties and responsibilities across the whole system and needs to have the capacity to discharge its duties effectively, particularly in relation to the most vulnerable. This is brought into even sharper focus with increasing levels of poverty in Brent, higher unemployment and changes to the housing benefit system.

Brent Local Authority is not standing still but is developing new ways of working in the changing landscape. We know that many services provided by the Local Authority, particularly School Improvement Services, are highly valued. We also know that many schools recognise the importance of a shared moral purpose that transcends individual schools.

Therefore Brent has developed a comprehensive Traded Services offer for 2012/13 and is also developing with schools a partnership model for future delivery of School Improvement Services from 2013/14 onwards, with schools as leading partners. Over 100 governors attended the recent meetings and there was a very positive response to partnership working between schools and the Local Authority to secure the best outcomes for Brent’s children and young people.

In summary, in making decisions about your school, we would ask you to consider the wider impact on Brent’s education community and the importance of working together in the Brent Family of Schools for the benefit of all Brent students.