Do these charges protect the most vulnerable?

An excellent habitat for rats behind Neasden shops

Just before Christmas Brent Council announced increased charges for its services generally averaging around 10%.  However this average concealed some much sharper increases that raise doubts about whether Labour is keeping its promise to protect the most vulnerable in  the face of Coalition cuts in funding. The charges are operative from January 1st 2011, giving no time for those affected to organise opposition.

Charges for allotment rental are to rise by a massive 127% but in addition groups previously exempted from fees will now pay 50%. The concessionary rate for people in receipt of a state pension now only applies to those who get Pension Credit and that for the unemployed now applies only to those on Income Support or Jobseekers' Allowance.

As a long-time allotment holder, first in Bridge Road, Harlesden and now at Birch Grove, Kingsbury, I know how important having an allotment is to those groups. The elderly, those on benefit or disability allowance  not only keep fit through working the allotment and healthy through eating its produce, but become part of a supportive and sociable community of gardeners, enhancing their quality of life. It is shameful that the council is increasing charges for these groups who are already the hardest hit by the Conservative-led Coalition cuts.

It is even more perplexing that the Council is introducing for the first time a charge for the control of rats. This is now going to cost £95 for one course of treatment. Sharp-eyed Brent residents will be familiar with the dark green bait tunnels to be seen around many of our estates, school playground and shopping centres. The rat population of the borough is on the increase and already resistant to many of the usual treatments.

Again the increased charges will hit those least likely to be able to pay, particularly those who live in poorly maintained, multi-occupied, private rented accommodation. The problem is likely to be exacerbated by the introduction of fortnightly rubbish collections and the possibility of sacks of rubbish being left by over-flowing bins.  Rather cynically the Council predicts that demand for rat pest control will fall by 75% to 90% as a result of the introduction of charges - will we see an equivalent increase in the number of rats running around the borough and the consequent danger of disease?

The full list of increases can be found HERE

Why cuts are the wrong cure from False Economy on Vimeo.

Keeping Sight of the Bigger Picture in Fightback

Rather than report on all the detailed information that was given by speakers at last night's Brent Fightback meeting, useful though it was, I would like to look at the themes that emerged.

The major theme was that the present round of cuts should be seen in historical context as a second stage in  the attempted reversal of the post-war settlement that began with Thatcherism and continued under New Labour. The current ConDem stage, using privatisation and marketisation of  the public sector, represents the dismantling of the welfare state as we know it.

Another theme is the Government's success, aided by Labour's ambivalence on the issue, of creating hegemony on the need to reduce the deficit, reduce it quickly and therefore the need for public sector cuts. All assumptions in this need to be challenged.  I called for us to make the argument that the cuts are not necessary and put forward an alternative perspective, including investment in a green economy (made more difficult by the cut in the Green Bank announced this week), rather than just react to each new cut as it comes along. Jamie Ritchie, from Brent Law Centre, put it eloquently when he said that he thought that the basis for making the cuts will be revealed as 'as big a lie' as that which justified the war on Iraq and one that used the same kind of methods.

This hegemony was revealed when the meeting debated the role of the Labour council. Phil O'Reilly of Unison after outlining the extent of council cuts  said she wanted to work with Labour councillors, but later admitted that the Council sometimes made this quite hard. George Fraser of the GMB stated unequivocally that the cuts were going to happen and that his role was to make sure that, in terms of the workforce, they were implemented fairly and the way to do this was to work with the Council. Speakers from the floor challenged this and called for a much more forceful stand against cuts by Labour councillors and, following the election of a swathe of Labour councils across London, for them to stand together to resist the cuts. The GLC's resistance to Thatcher under Ken Livingstone was cited as a good example and it was suggested that a 'Plan of Minimum Resistance' on the main issues should be drawn up.

Cllr Janice Long (Labour), after admitting that Brent Labour was 'not what it once was', pointed out that the Council needed to cuts £98m over the next four years and that if they didn't do so they would be removed from office. If people concentrated on fighting the Council they might win that battle but they would lose the war. She pleaded, "Fight with the Council against the Government. It's a war - fight the war: not the battle."

Many speakers praised the young people who have taken part in recent demonstrations for their militancy and their inventiveness. Unfortunately young people were not well represented at the meeting with the majority present over 60 and male. The movement will really take off when the social network organised young people and the more traditionally organised over 60s are joined by the parents of young families who will be hit by unemployment, housing benefit cuts, Surestart centres closing and education cuts amongst many others. Involving them in the movement is our next big challenge.

NHS 'reforms' under attack

The NHS Campaign has issue the following quotations from official responses to the NHS White Paper:

"We believe the plans for free choice of GP practice will be damaging in terms of continuity of care, health inequalities and, potentially, patient safety." Royal College of General Practitioners

"A market-based approach risks fragmentation, inefficiency and increased transaction costs." British Medical Association

"We are gravely concerned that the Government takes little or no account of the potential impact on disadvantaged or disengaged individuals or communities.” Royal College of Nurses

"After analysing the proposed new system, we have identified significant risks, worrying uncertainties and unexploited opportunities." NHS Confederation


"We question a fundamental reorganisation, when evidence shows that health outcomes and public satisfaction have improved in recent years." The King's Fund

"The NHS is facing the most difficult financial times in its history. Now is not the time for ripping up internal structures yet again on scant evidence base." Civitas

"At best this will be a waste of time, at worst a waste of money." The Social Market Foundation

LINK to join in action

We are now the generation at the heart of the fightback...

Local Council Spending Cuts in Brent

These are the estimated figures based on yesterday's announcement (from the Guardian website):

BRENT
Estimated 2011-12 Revenue Spending Power £301m
Change in 2011-12 Revenue Spending Power -5.85%
Change in 2012-13 Revenue Spending Power -4.0%
Change in formula grant 2010-11 to 2011-12 -11.30%
Change in formula grant 2011-12 to 2012-13 -7.40%

Wasted opportunity to get strategy right

Brent Council Executive last night refused to accept the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee on the Waste Strategy despite the efforts of Elaine Henderson and Viv Stein of Friends of the Earth who addressed the meeting (see below). They also decided to go ahead with consultation on the West London Waste Authority's plans for more waste processing depots in the borough, serving several nearby boroughs, despite concerns about the concentration of such facilities in Brent and lack of information on the actual processes that will be employed.  In his contribution Cllr Powney, lead member on these issues, appeared not to provide any substantial answers to the questions raised.  On waste the issue was reduced to budgetary demands rather than green principles.

Viv Stein's speech:

Brent Campaign against Climate Change endorses the views of Brent FoE regarding the waste strategy.  Having attended the previous Executive committee and last week’s Scrutiny committee I felt compelled to speak as I was so astounded by some of the comments made by Cllr Powney.

Both the Brent Campaign and FoE are in favour of increasing recycling, increasing green jobs and cutting carbon.  But this new system is likely to CUT UK jobs, INCREASE emissions and is UNLIKELY to achieve the huge increase in recycling to 60%, which Cllr Powney admitted last week is “very important to get this right as will be a major financial problem for the Council if we don’t.”

You might think this strategy is all about climate change and cutting emissions.  So much so that it mentions climate change 28 times in the document.  But will it really have such an impact?

Yes we do understand there will be less emissions in the collection within Brent – with fewer lorry journeys (as less frequent collections) and instead of recyclables sorted manually on the kerbside they’ll be crushed (so you get more in the trucks).  But when you consider:

-there will be larger vehicles, using more fuel

-the mechanical separation at the materials recovery facility (which uses loads of electricity)

-the additional distances lorries have to travel to these

-the likely reprocessing overseas (as we’ve heard the commingled low-grade materials are likely to be sent further away including China), something not ruled out now by Brent, our emissions do not stop at Brent’s borders, so overall they will actually INCREASE.

Camden Council did an energy audit of their commingled collection, when they switched from kerbside sorted and found that, “The carbon footprint of the co-mingled collection system, transfer and MRF is 77% greater than for the kerbside sorted waste collection.”  They then changed to a twin-stream system, with paper collected separately, as Brent FoE proposed previously.

My question is – has an energy audit been modelled into the proposed new system?  If not, how can you possibly claim it will reduce emissions?

We’ve heard that commingling will produce low quality materials, so another question is – is this paving the way for incineration of Brent’s waste? Only last week the UK Confederation of Paper Industries expressed concerns that increasingly paper that could be recycled, may be used to generate energy instead.  This is both an incredibly inefficient use of resources and as a means of energy production, besides all the other concerns that incineration brings.

One of the main reasons why commingling is bad is that the crushed glass contaminates everything, but it also has implications for emissions.  According to WRAP (waste resources action programme) “co-mingled collection of glass frequently results in glass used as road aggregate, which creates 2 kg of CO₂ for each tonne of glass. Whereas, glass that is not compacted during the collection phase is made back into bottles and jars, which saves 314kg of CO₂ for every tonne.”

So to conclude I am asking for the Exec to reconsider the current kerbside sorted system, and if for some reason you really can’t, I would urge for an amendment that “glass be separated for collection in a twin- stream system” which would be preferable. (These could be collect in the existing green boxes and put in a wheelie bin on the kerbside).

Join the Fightback Against Cuts on Wednesday