What future for Brent's ash trees?

An ash plantation in Fryent Country park earlier today

It won't really be clear until next Spring and Summer how many of the ash trees in Brent have been affected by ash dieback disease. A considerable number have been planted in Fryent Country Park over the years and contribute greatly to the beauty of the woodlands. With their own open canopy they encourage rich growths of small trees, shrubs and plants beneath the trees.

Brent Parks Department told me:

The spread of the disease, knowledge and best practice are in a fast-changing situation.  Obviously we are vulnerable due to the large number of Ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in Brent.

There is very little that we can do protect trees if the disease does spread.  The movement of Ash trees is prohibited so we won't be planting any.  Dried timber is thought to not carry the disease and can continue to be used for timber or fuel; and on my reading of the government Order, felled greenwood can also still be moved for these purposes providing it is not from an area where Chalara is present.  The Government has accepted advice that diseased mature trees should not necessarily be removed in woodland.  Experience from continental Europe is that 10-20% of Ash trees are resistant. 

In practical terms the main protection is not to move Ash material from site to site; and certainly not infected material.  If the disease is also air-borne, then there is little that can be done to directly stop movement through the air.  Longer-term, the important of diversifying woodland would be a good policy, though there are some areas of Britain where Ash naturally dominates woodland, and also in secondary woodland.

Brent Parks will be monitoring the health of ash trees in the Country Park and elsewhere in the borough.

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, has expressed concern and called for changes in government policy to deal with the issue on the Guardian Environment website LINK

To stand a chance of safeguarding our trees and plants, the government must respond to calls from the scientific community for far more radical controls on biosecurity.

According to a growing number of tree disease specialists, this should mean using quarantine for other iconic trees such as oak, pine and plane, and banning imports if necessary.

If plants known to be carrying pathogens were quarantined, as they are in Australia for example, we might be able stop at least some diseases spreading and slow down others. If quarantine conditions are not met, then an import ban should be urgently considered.

Furthermore, as set out in an early day motion by Zac Goldsmith which I co-sponsored, we need guarantees from Defra that the forestry authorities will get the resources they need to ensure both a rapid response to other disease outbreaks and improved screening in future.

Finally, ministers should also look again at the forestry grants system, which perversely seems to encourage imports from overseas and perpetuates the great tree trade. In particular, late decisions by the government on the grant agreements mean that UK growers are often left with no time to grow the saplings here, forcing them to source from abroad.

The potential cost of inaction on these issues is incredibly high. With the Woodland Trust warning that ash dieback could wipe out between 70-90% of our ash trees, it's more urgent than ever that the government listens to the warnings and takes the long-term view – recognising that investment in resources now to safeguard our natural heritage is money well spent.

Teather 'terrified' of impact of benefit cap on Brent families

Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent Central has spoken out today on the impact of the benefit cap on her constituents. LINK

This is an extract from the Observer's story:

In an outspoken interview with the Observer, the Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather, who was sacked from the government in September, says the policy will have devastating effects on many thousands of children whose lives will be disrupted as their parents are forced to uproot from their homes.

Teather predicts that there will be a "reverse Jarrow march" in the run up to next April, when the cap comes into force, as families head out of London in huge numbers, in search of new homes.
Accusing ministers of a deliberate attempt to denigrate those who cannot find work, Teather says she saw clear evidence while in government that the policy would not save money and that it would inflict immense social damage.

While accepting that the wider aim of encouraging people off benefits and into work is the right way forward, she says that imposing a cap on people who live in areas such as her own Brent Central constituency in north London, where rents are high, will have a "horrible" and "traumatic" impact. She also claims that the primary motive behind the policy, which has strong public support, was a desire to court popularity by unfairly demonising the poor.

"There are all sorts of things you have to do when times are tight that have negative consequences but you do them for good purposes. But to do something for negative purposes that also has negative consequences – that is immoral," says Teather. She praised Nick Clegg for showing "immense courage" in limiting some of the effects of welfare cuts and urged her party to fight as hard as it possibly could to prevent more. She said many people in her constituency, which is one of the most ethnically diverse and deprived in the country, did not realise what was about to hit them next April.

Middle-class families were also ignorant of the huge impact of the changes on those around them, particularly on children, because of the caricatures peddled by government and the rightwing press about those on benefits. She believes the effects may only sink in when children from "nice middle-class families who send their kids to the local primary school come home and say 'my friend has just disappeared'. I think then it might hit home and they might realise a whole set of children have disappeared from the class."

Teather added: "I am frankly terrified about what is going to happen. A lot of these families do not know what is going to happen to them … How good is the education system at working out where that child has moved to? How good is the child protection system going to be at working out where children have moved to? I don't feel confident of that."

The local council estimates that more than 2,000 people in Brent will end up losing at least £50 a week when the cap comes in. At the top end, 84 families will lose about £1,000 a week. Many will be driven out of the area, including thousands of children.

She accuses parts of government and the press of a deliberate campaign to "demonise" those on benefits and of failing to understand that those in need of state help are just as human as they are. With vivid outrage she describes the language and caricatures that have been peddled.

"Whenever there is any hint of opposition they wheel out a caricature of a family, usually a very large family, probably black, most likely recent immigrants, without much English, lots of children, apparently chaotic, living in a desirable neighbourhood that middle-class people would like to occupy. That is the caricature and of course it is a partial spinning of the truth and it allows the demonisation to take place.

"I would really urge particularly Conservative colleagues but people in all parties to be careful. I don't think we can afford to preside over a society where there is a gradual eroding of sympathy for people at the bottom end of the income spectrum and a rapid erosion of sympathy for people on benefits."

The background to Brent's 2013-14 budget

Mike Bowden. Assistant Director of Finance for Brent Council, gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Thursday setting out the background to Brent's 2013-14 Budget. This does not appear to be available on the council website so I have extracted some of the key points below.

For clarity any explanations or comments from me are in italics (ie words in italics are not Mike Bowden's responsibility).

BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13

• Quarter 1 forecast was overspend of £2m
• Latest forecast is small underspend of £0.1m
• Departments are on track to deliver within budgets
• Need strong foundations to manage risks from 2013/14 onwards (this implies radical actions including cuts and possibly council tax rise)

 NON-EARMARKED RESERVES

Target for 2013/14 of £12m

• Reserves at 31/3/12                £10.3m
• Budgeted increase 12/13           £1.0m
• Projected increase in 13/.14       £0.7m

External audit - acknowledged improved financial resilience and recommended that we should should continue to build level of reserves (It was revealed more than a year ago that Brent had some of the lowest reserves in London and Audit Commission followed this up with recommendation for increase)

BUDGET GAP:

Medium Term Financial Projections:

• 2013/14      (£0.2m)
• 2014/15        £2.5m
• 2015/16        £7.5m

BUDGET GAP - July 2012

Assumptions for 2013/14 included

• Council tax increase 3.5% (it now looks as if Eric Pickles will trigger local referenda for any increase over 2%. Any rise will impact on the poor as well as meaning more people default on payment)
• Existing planned savings of £7m are delivered
• Cost avoidance included through one council projects
• New Council Tax Support Scheme would meet shortfall in Council Tax Benefit Funding (scheme going before Special Council Meeting on December 10th)

UPDATE ON 2013/14 BUDGET

• Government Autumn Statement will not now  be delivered until 5th December 2012
• Provision Local Government Settlement will not be known until 20th December 2012 ?? (subject to confirmation)
• Impact on council's  decision making timetable
• Government's regular announcements - uncertainty over true impacts

Developments

• Council tax free - New one off grant offered by Government
• Top -slicing - EIG (Early Intervention Grant) £4m (includes provision for 2 year olds but see Muhammed Butt's statement LINK) Academies£7m (partly to council and partly to schools)
• Census - £4m (due to increase in Brent's population but it is not certain we will get it)
• Council Tax Surplus - £1.8m (one-off) (Council more successful in collection this year - uncertainty that will continue after council tax benefit changes and increasing economic pressure on families).

Uncertainties and risks

• Further changes by central government
• Housing Benefit subsidy regime/Temporary Accommodation (shift of costs of housing crisis to local government)
• One Council Savings (presumably whether they are successful)
• Review of pressures (housing, adult and children's social care)
• Opportunities for additional savings  (I interpret this as 'What's left to cut without causing damage or merely shifting pressures within the council's budget)

COUNCIL TAX

Temporary council tax freeze spending:
2011/12   £2.6m for 4 years
2012/13   £2.6m for 1 year
2013/14   £0.8m for 2 years

Ongoing income foregone of 3 year tax freeze = c£7m per annum (what will lost if council puts up Council Tax. Previous reports by Clive Deaphy (ex Director of Finance) referred to the need to strengthen the council's Council Tax base)

KEY ISSUES FOR 2013-14

• Late settlement = decision making later than usual
• Need to maintian focus on long-term position > Recognise that funding will continue to diminish > Fundamental change to Council's approach and services required (this again implies cuts, decision to no longer deliver some services, more out-sourcing etc. Bowden commented that a 'resilience budget' was required and the council needed to ensure that short-term decision did not affect long-term prospects)
• Flexible approach to ensure capability to withstand risks
• Opportunities for tactical savings that do not undemine future prospects
• New commitments to be funded by offsetting savings

______________________________

Readers will see that there are plenty of issues to raise questions about here and hence the public's disappointment at the Scrutiny Committee that councillors failed to ask searching questions. Labour councillors had probably been briefed already so thought it unnecessary to question in public. Conservative councillors did attend and Lib Dem Alison Hopkins was in the chair.  However Cllr Brown did not attend and nor did his Lib Dem alternates Cllr Green or Lorber. There were no questions about how the compressed timetable would now include consultation with the public, community organisations and trades unions. Councillors asked only one question of Muhammed Butt who, along with Cllr Ruth Moker, specifically attended to answer questions after Bowden's presentation.

BUDGET DECISION MAKING TIMETABLE

Before funding announcement:

19th November - Full Council - first reading debate

10th December  - Executive - council tax surplus

10th December -  Special Council - council tax support scheme

After funding announcement

22nd January 2013 - General Purposes Committee - Council tax base - business rate base
5th February - Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee

11th February 2013 - Executive - council tax level recommendation
25th February 2013 - Full Council

There's more to solving London's housing crisis than just building houses

Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member for London has produced a thought provoking report on London's housing crisis LINK

This is an extract:

There is no doubt that housing in London is far too expensive, whether you want to buy or rent. The Mayor says this is because we haven’t built enough homes, and that building more is the single-most important thing we can do. But my evidence shows that we are unlikely to make housing affordable through supply in the next decade, meaning continued pressure on house prices and rents. Other solutions therefore have to be looked at. 

Government figures suggest we should have built more than half a million homes in London since the GLA was set-up in 2000 in order to keep up with a growing population and rising demand. In fact we built half as many.

Combined with irresponsible lending, this sent prices rising two to three times as fast as incomes. Prices are now so high that:

·   Half the population is unable to buy three quarters of the homes in London, with housing increasingly bought by investors rather than owner-occupiers.

·   Minimum wage workers can’t afford to rent the average room in a shared flat in any borough in London, and they struggle to get social housing as the stock has shrunk.

If supply were the main answer, the Mayor could push for two options:

·   Flood the market with enough homes to make house prices fall by at least 40% overnight to affordable levels.

·   Build enough to keep prices flat and wait up to 30 years for incomes to catch up with prices so that homes are affordable again.

Given our track record in the last decade, the current scarcity of mortgage finance, constraints on land supply and the shortage of people able to affordable any newly built homes, it is unlikely that private developers will build enough homes in London to achieve either of those options. Even if we kept prices flat, we can’t leave people stuck in overpriced and insecure private rented housing for 30 years while their incomes catch up.

For these reasons, I believe the Mayor needs to consider other solutions in addition to supply. Here are just a few other ideas that think tanks, academics and campaigners have put forward:

·   Constrain demand by putting controls or extra taxes on overseas investors and second home owners, or even by putting a tax on all land values to dampen speculation and stop developers sitting on large, unused land banks;

·   Give councils an incentive to release land for housing with community land auctions;

·   Build more social housing that can stay affordable regardless of supply and demand in the market, which would require either a dramatic increase direct subsidy, redirecting the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme into housing, or freeing up councils to borrow at prudential levels.

·   Give private tenants continental-style rent controls and protections to slow the rise in rents and give people more stability than the current minimum of 6 month contracts.

Some ideas, such as taxing and auctioning land, are long-term policies to restructure our housing market and improve the level of supply. Others, such as rent controls, could also help tenants struggling with high housing costs today while we wait for supply to catch up.

Darren has published an article on Left Foot Forward elaborating his argument: