Brent library privatisation hits the front page and two men named James disagree about what it means

The Kilburn Times (above) puts the possible privatisation of Brent libraries management on its front page.  Management would be handed over to a charitable trust although details are not clear.

The story was first covered on Wembley Matters on January 4th LINK (Will privatisation of Brent Council's  library management damage the service?)  and I published an extract from a blog by Alan Wylie, veteran library campaigner, who made these points about the leisure companies or trusts:

What a Leisure Trust means in practice:

• Leisure services are outsourced to a separate organisation/company. 
• The Council retains ownership of the facilities, which are leased to the Trust.
• Virtually all the savings come from rate reductions and VAT savings, which are much smaller initially because of the high set up costs. 
• Direct democratic control of the service will cease - elected member representation on a trust is limited to less than 20% of the board.
• Company law requires that Board members must put the interests of the leisure trust before those of the local authority. 
• After a year the Trust will usually cease to use council services and will be responsible its own procurement and contracting or corporate and other services.

The move, ostensibly, is to save £160,000 in rates (trusts get charged 80% rather than the 100% the Council will pay), although this is a loophole that may well be closed.

Margaret Bailey, chair of Friends of Kensal Rise Library, told the Kilburn Times that privatising services often ends up costing more:

Savings made on the 80% (rates) rebate will be minimal   and certainly not enough justification for privatising the service. I wish local authorities would fight these cuts together - and harness the support of their communities to do this.

 I agree.

Cllr James Denselow, now in charge of libraries under his Stronger Communities portfolio claims its a change in management structure, rather than privatisation and  'saves us a huge amount of money with rate changes'.  He recognised the sensitive nature of the changes and said the Council would do 'only if we find it's the right thing for us, for our libraries..and our communities.'

James Powney, whose blog has become a lot more interesting since he left the Council, wrote a article on the issue on Thursday morning LINK

Cllr Powney of course was the lead member when half of Brent's libraries were closed. He said that the wording of the officers' report ('established trust') suggests an existing body and the obvious one is that which currently runs Ealing and Harrow libraries:

The phrase "transfer management" suggests something more ambitious.  Not just founding a Trust but having the management taken over by a private company as in Greenwich or Hounslow.  This would be a lot more complicated.  A full procurement would need specification of a contract and a full tendering exercise for what would be a sizable contract.  In itself that would be a substantial one-off cost.  The Localism Act appears to have made this whole issue even more complicated than it was before.  The redundancy of senior management is likely to make the whole process even more difficult. 

This option was discussed when I was on the Executive, and rejected.  The business rate saving was largely a piece of accountancy smoke and mirrors (I understand that the rules may have been partly changed since then), and it seemed to me that all the things a private firm could do to cut costs could also be done by the Council.  Of course, having direct employees also gives you more control and we wanted to ensure the success of the Libraries Transformation Project by having hands on management.  Therefore we only went for the Sports Centre part of the project. 

The two James clearly have different perspectives and it will be interesting to see how this pans out. Meanwhile library staff are rightly concerned about what these vague proposals mean for them, their working conditions and their pensions.  The public should be concerned about what it will mean for the quality of their library service when the number of libraries has been halved and the council are proposing to cut the amount spent on book stock.

Brent Council: Communicating Rubbish

I was incensed yesterday when I saw the leaflet about Brent Council's waste collection that had been pushed through my door.  It put such a gloss on the £40 annual  'garden tax' charge for green bin collection that many people must have thought that it was almost as good as winning the lottery!

It advertised a free bulky waste collection despite the fact that proposals are going before the Council to introduce a charge of £15 for such collections.

The bulky waste collection charge has long been an issue between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dem-Conservative administration  introduced a charge of £25 and the incoming Labour adminstration in 2010 abolished the charge.

The arguments the then councillor James Powney made against the charge still stand.  LINK

Now Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat Brent Council leader at the time of the £25 charge, has made a formal complaint to Council officers about the current leaflet. He suggests that the £15 charge was put into the proposals merely so that it could be withdrawn and show that the Council had listened to residents:

I have expressed my concerns as to how the scrapping of the weekly service and the proposed £40 charge for a reduced service has been presented. The latest leaflet delivered to residents continues to provide misleading and incomplete information.

I am disappointed that the misleading information produced by the Council and Veolia has continued. Please treat this email as a formal complaint on the following grounds:

I object to a reduced and chargeable service to be described as 'New' as if it was something positive when in fact residents are being asked to pay £40 for a substantially reduced service with collections just fortnightly during the summer and just monthly during the winter months.

On a separate issue I note that the leaflet is also advertising the 'Free' collection of bulky household items. This confirms the sham of the current budget consultation as the item to charge £15 for this service in the hope of a massive reduction in take up is just a 'sham' as this was put on the list simply to enable the Leader to claim later that this is one service "I have managed to save".

I think that the Council (officers and councillors) are showing a great deal of disrespect to Brent residents in the misleading way you are communicating with them. The leaflets are paid for from taxpayers money and should therefore provide honest information and not to reflect misleading information from the Labour Administration.
 

Brent Labour support campaign on cuts but not refusal to implement them

Apparently Cllr Butt recently advised fellow Labour councillors not to read Wembley Matters as it is 'the enemy'. He is still searching for 'leakers' amongst officers, councillors and members.

Anyway, everyone is going to have to be a lot more careful and not leave documents behind after meetings and avoid any other carelessness with information Muhammed deems the public should not know.

Interestingly, at Saturday's All Brent Labour Pary meeting, a motion was put which if published would go some way to improve Brent Council's tarnished reputation over internal policy.

So here it is.

This is the motion put by Kilburn branch:

This all-member forum notes that the £54 million cut in Brent Council’s funding over the next two years, on top of the £89 million already cut since 2010 will have a devastating effect on jobs and services in the borough. We cannot accept that the Labour Party and Labour Council should take responsibility for passing on this attack, which will inevitably hit the most vulnerable in the borough.
This cut in funding is not just a financial attack, but also an ideological one, stemming from the Tories declared aim of cutting back the welfare state, alongside a reduction of local democracy and centralisation. Their model for local government is the one promoted by Tory Barnet, where the role of the Council is simply to award contracts to outside companies.
 
This assault requires a political, not just a managerial, response from the Labour Party, both locally and nationally.
 
Therefore, the Brent Labour Party, together with Brent Labour Councillors, will:
 
1. Mount a campaign informing all residents of the effect which government cuts are having on local services and jobs, encouraging them to become involved in demanding the return of the money from central government:
2. Meet with Council and other trades unionists, service users etc. to urge them to mount a campaign with them against the cuts;
3. Approach other Labour Councils, in London and beyond, urging them to mount a similar campaign and to coordinate our efforts;
4. Incorporate this campaign into our efforts to win the general election, showing how coalition government policy is affecting jobs and services in the borough;
5. Urge, together with others in the labour movement, the national Labour Party to support such a campaign and to commit to restoring local government funding and democracy, including examining ways of placing the cost on the rich and corporations rather than the most vulnerable;
6. As an integral part of this campaign, Brent Labour Councillors will give a commitment to refuse to make the cuts demanded by central government

The leadership argued that they were already doing most of this and successfully substituted an amendment to Point 6, the most radical part of the motion.

I haven't got the exact wording of the amendment (please send it to me if you have it) but it was along the lines of recognising the difficulties councillors face in making the budget decisions and supporting their efforts.

I would support the motion as it was put (retaining the original Point 6) except for widening the appeal to all Councils as many other Councils under different political control, including the Greens in Brighton, want to see the restoration of local government funding and recognise the devastating impact of the Coalition's local government funding cuts.

Stonebridge child gives Labour Council leaders some home truths

Outsdie Brent Civic Centre last night

One of the children from Stonebridge Adventure Playground surprised workers who had accompanied her to last night’s Consultation event at the Civic Centre. They said what happened ‘made the whole event worthwhile’.

The girl had been scribbling away on one of the comments cards that had been distributed and onlookers assumed she was doodling out of sheer boredom.  But then she took the microphone  and gave an impassioned speech from her notes.  She mentioned the hardship that would be caused to single and working parents, and how the closure of the Adventure Playground  would mean there was nowhere for the community to mix, people would just stay in their flats and not let their children go out. She also mentioned CCTV cameras which she said aren¹t as necessary when young people have somewhere to go.  

The councillors responded that at an earlier meeting the users of the Millennium Centre had spoken up for their centre in a similar way (thereby apparently implying it was pointless trying to argue from a human perspective) 

Doug Lee from the Playground spoke about the six months that kids aren't at school, the length of time the playground has been in operation and the money Brent Play Association has raised on behalf of other groups in Brent (supplementary schools, CVS, Pakistani Workers Association to name just three) 

Glynis Lee said that the council were saying 20% cuts to front-line services but Stonebridge Adventure Playground  was getting a 100% cut. The cuts were going to decimate front-line services, whilst councillors sat in their glass tower taking a 20% rise and people in Brent were suffering.
Although Jo Coburn from BBC Politics, who chaired yesterday’s meetings for a fee of £2,500, wanted to get into the subject of where the cuts should be made, Glynis was having none of it.

She told the councillors they were elected by the people of Brent as Labour councillors and were doing the work of the Coalition. She asked, ‘how do you guys sleep at night?' 

Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey said they did have trouble sleeping but to not go ahead with these measures would be breaking the law and they weren't prepared to do that.  

The Youth Parliament representatives also mentioned the increase in councillors' allowance and Butt responded they wanted to attract the best councillors and not just retired people or those with enough funds to do it.

People in the room also asked about proposals to work with the voluntary sector to continue to provide services in some way, and Anne O'Neil from Brent Mencap pointed out that the procurement process would hinder this unless it was vastly improved. 

An important question was raised from the floor about the use  of  Section 106 money for communities affected by redevelopment. Cllr Butt answered this, unsatisfactorily according to some, implying  that these funds just went into the general pot, and not to the respective communities.