Lorraine on the Bus - Why You Should Join Us on March 26th

Consultation Under Fire

Way back in Winter 2008 I wrote in Brent Green News about concerns about consultation in Brent. As complaints multiply about recent consultations it is worth returning to the topic.

Brent Council's website states:

Consultations give you the opportunity to get involved with decision-making in Brent.

We consult with the public on proposals and plans and take responses into account when deciding our policies for the borough.

Many residents now think that consultations do not enable them to get involved in decision making - decisions have often been made before the consultation ends. Some major decisions are not consulted about at all. Residents often also feel that their responses are not taken into account.

Some residents thought that if  there was enough opposition to a Council proposal then it might be abandoned. Cllr Ruth Moher.  in the case of the adult day centres when users were overwhelmingly opposed to closure, clearly stated that this was not the case.

The question then arises about what the point of consultation is. A cynic may respond that it is to enable a box to be ticked in documentation - and no more than that. Let's look at some variations in consultation.

1. NO CONSULTATION - The Council does not consult at all but just goes ahead, often on the most important issues.  This includes not consulting on the principle of academy schools in the case of the Wembley Ark Academy. Consultation was about the plans and the name, not whether we should have academy schools. Similarly the Council did not ask whether Brent residents wanted a grandiose Civic Centre, but we could comment on the design. Currently the Council is going ahead with an all through school at Preston Manor without consultation on whether this type of school is wanted, again consultation has been limited to planning issues.
2. DECISIONS MADE BEFORE CONSULTATION ENDS - This appears to be the case with the closure of Brent libraries. The Council budget setting meeting, and Cllr Ann John herself, assumed the closures would go ahead despite consultation still having some days to run and no report available on the outcomes.
3. CONSULTATION NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR SPEEDY DECISIONS - This is a new development and linked to financial deadlines such as the front-loading of cuts this year and the need to spend school places safety valve money before August 2011. In cases such as the Charteris Sports Centre and the libraries insufficient time is given to the search for alternatives solutions and the closures go ahead anyway. With school places there is not sufficient time to change the location of Preston Manor Primary School to reduce its impact on traffic congestion 'because the plans are already in place' and no time to discuss incorporating the Mission Dining Club into the new building at Newfield Primary School.The Council applied for planning permission for the Preston Manor Primary School before the Executive had considered submissions on the statutory consultation and approved it. 
4. HALF-COCK CONSULTATION/PARTICIPATION - The residents raising issues with the planning committee on Preston Manor had two site visits with the planning committee on which keys to the site were not available. On the last occasion some councillors wandered away while residents were trying to talk to them and one clambered back onto the bus.  A further problem has been the illegibility of poorly scanned documentation on the Council website. The library campaigns have taken up the inaccuracy of library visit statistics that formed a key part of the Council's case for closures and the figures on children without school places in the vicinity of Preston Manor have been challenged.
5. RESPONDENTS QUESTIONS/COMMENTS NOT ANSWERED - Again in the Preston Manor case some questions remained completely unanswered in the Council's response undermining the legitimacy of the decision.
6. PROPOSALS/QUESTIONNAIRES DISGUISING THE REAL ISSUES - The most obvious one here is the Library 'Transformation' Programme which some library users through was about redecoration and not closures! The Brent Magazine questionnaire on the Waste Strategy was less than clear that it involved a switch to fortnightly residual waste collection.
7. INFORMATION GIVING MASQUERADING AS CONSULTATION - The recent allotment 'consultation' on the rise in  rents was held after the Council approved the rise and when it had been announced before Christmas. Allotment holders were really just told why rents had risen in the context of the Council's financial difficulties and not asked whether they should have been put up or whether there were any alternative proposals.
8. RESIDENTS NOT INFORMED OF CONSULTATION - A regular issue, particularly with planning applications. It arose over Preston Manor when many residents living nearby the school were not told about expansion proposals. After initially saying that what they had done was adequate the Council did send out additional letters. Under the last administration similar complaints were made about the Wembley Masterplan.

All this really riles residents and contributes to a distrust of politicians. More importantly, it discourages active citizenship and participation at a time when local government needs all the friends it can get.

Lock Down as Academy Forced Through

The governing body of Claremont High School approved the school's conversion to an academy  after campaigners claimed the headteacher had doors padlocked, brought in extra security and made areas of the school no go areas to prevent lobbying by parents and staff unhappy with the what they see as lack of consultation and accountability. The decision is controversial because nearly three quarters of all staff, teaching and non teaching, at the school had voted NO in an independently overseen secret ballot. The school has now written to parents to say the school will be an academy from April 1st.

Parents who turned up to a meeting organised by the unions on Wednesday had voiced concerns that they had not had the opportunity for proper consultation. There had been no meeting where they could have heard pros and cons, asked questions and debated the issue. Therefore the next day the Headteacher received many emails from parents asking for a delay in making a decision until consultation in the form of a meeting for all parents had taken place and some asking for a ballot similar to the staff one. 

Comments from the emails included:

“We are concerned that there has been no consultation with any parents or any concrete information indicating what implications these changes would have for the future.”

“As parents, we think it would be democratic if there was a meeting and a ballot with the parents of the school before any final decisions are made.”

“An e-mail … voicing our concerns ... you failed to respond, thereby confirming our suspicions that there would be no meaningful consultation over these plans.”

“As you are aware the majority of staff have objected to this application .  There must a very good reason as to why so many of them feel so strongly.”

“I do not feel I have been properly informed about this change and DO NOT wish for this important change to happen without more discussion.”

Parents were astounded that they were not allowed into the school yesterday to make these points in person. They told staff outside the school gates, who earlier had been banned from lobbying the meeting or even delivering letters appealing for a delay, that it was appalling that parents could be treated in this way. They felt it was undemocratic and demeaning to treat the parents of the children who have made Claremont an outstanding school in such a manner.

The unions had written to the Headteacher and Chair of Governors stating that there would be industrial and legal action unless the decision was delayed as the governors had not followed the proper legal processes during consultation.

Claremont Teaching Unions' Appeal to Governors HERE

Allotment Holders Revolt Against Rent Increases

More than a hundred Brent allotment holders crowded into the Town Hall last night for a 'consultation' about the recent rent increases. Several people stopped me after the meeting to ask me what the point of consultation was when the increases had been announced before Christmas and approved at the February 28th budget meeting. Good question.

Councillor Powney was again in the firing line and faced a barrage of passionate and eloquent speeches from the floor which surpassed speeches made at other cuts protests. Alongside the fiery speeches there were also closely argued contributions challenging the legality of the increases and referring to case law.

Many speeches dwelt on the iniquity of rises of more than 100% and pensioners having to pay for their allotments for the first time - the concession will be 50% of the rental with the first five poles for £37.50. The average plot is 10 poles. Pensioners told the Cllr Powney (lead member for Environment) and Shaun Faulkner (Head of Brent Parks Service) how important the allotments were in enabling them to keep fit, get out and about, eat healthily, and socialise. "I can't afford the increase from my little pension and I don't want to get old and sick. We keep ourselves going, struggling to pay our bills. Why do we have to be left hungry?." said one pensioner.

Shaun Faulkner said that the Council were committed to the allotment services and recognised the many benefits t that accrued apart from the actual growing of crops. He claimed that even with the rent increases the allotments would still be subsidised and that improvements would be made from additional funds such as Section 106 money and the formation of partnerships. He said he didn't want to go back to the poor service that used to exist in Brent. In the past there was only a 30% to 40% uptake of plots but now there was a waiting list of more than 1,000 people. The rent rise might mean that some present allotment holders would reduce the size of their plots releasing more for people on the waiting list. He said his department was saddened by the increase and sympathised with allotment holders but 'a process had been gone through'. He added that he knew allotment holders were not making money out of their allotments, that they had to pay for tools, seeds and fertilizers; that they were not just about gardening but also a sense of community; and emphasised that he wanted to be honest with allotment holders.

Cllr Powney outlined the process, saying that a rental  comparison had been made with other London boroughs before the increase was fixed and that this process had been followed for other services. However I challenged him on this because earlier he had admitted that the Brent charge was the second highest in London. I suggested that if this was done on a comparative basis than it would have been fairer to set the rate at the average London level. He replied that it had been hard to get the figures out of other London boroughs and to make exact comparisons because of different rates and services.  He said the most expensive borough, Wandsworth was charging £20 a pole. In  response to the steepness of the increase for pensioners who had previously paid no rent he undertook to see if the increase could be staggered as it was a 'hardship issue', but warned that the money required would have to come from other provision.

The legal issues centred  around law which states that allotments are a recreational activity, should be subsidised and any increases should be in line with other recreational activity charges. Dr Franklin quoting case history from 1981 said that the increases were a tax on the poor and vulnerable. He said he was prepared to take the council to the High Court if necessary.  He urged those present to refuse to pay the increase and just pay their old rent when the bills arrived. Cllr Powney advised allotment holders not to take legal advice from a non-lawyer and stressed that the increases had been approved by the Council's legal department and that the Borough Solicitor was considering Dr Franklin's e-mail. He said that this was the fourth threat of legal action he had received in the last week. Challenged about the possibility of further increases Cllr Powney said he 'would be surprised if there were any further charges over the next few years".

Many of the audience complained about the lack of facilities on their allotments including toilets, footpaths and robust fencing. Those from the Dog Lane plots were particularly vociferous about the difficult conditions they faced on their waterlogged site. Cllr Powney suggested there was a contradiction in that the audience were opposing rent increases but also demanding better facilities. However, it does seem that forced to pay much more in rent there will be rising expectations of the service from allotment holders.

Declaration of interest: I cultivate an allotment at the Birchen Grove site, near the Welsh Harp and when I lived in Harlesden had a plot at Bridge Road.

Accountability behind locked doors

There's a notice on the Claremont High School website saying that consultation on conversion to an academy ended on March 9th and that comments would be considered at last night's governing body meeting. This morning there is no news about any decision made by governors.

However, I am told that things were far from normal when parents and staff arrived to lobby the governors last night. In an echo of the Council's budget setting meeting on February 28th there was increased security at the school, doors were padlocked and lobbyists were not allowed in.  At the last governors' meeting on February 9th, Mr Malloy, headteacher, told governors that if the school became an academy it would be accountable to the community at at a much 'higher level' than at present. Hmm.

Meanwhile the school should have received letters from the trades unions about legal action and some parents are also looking at the possibility of legal remedies to inadequate consultation.

Charteris Meeting on Saturday

A message from the Charteris Sports Centre Campaign:

Public Meeting on Saturday the 12th of March, 4.30 at Charteris.

The future of Charteris is at stake.

Please come and be part of the future:

Please bring your friends, neighbours, local residents, Charteris users.

Demand a General Election - This government has no mandate for cuts

Guest blog from Mike Shaughnessy of Haringey Green Party

From what I hear about advance coach and train bookings, it appears that the TUC demonstration on Saturday 26th March is going to be very well attended, with some predictions that a million people will join the march through central London. But, let’s not be complacent, and everyone who can possibly attend this event should resolve themselves to do so. A huge show of opposition to the ConDem government’s attack on public services and the welfare state itself, is necessary to display for all to see, the strength of feeling aroused by these damaging slash and burn policies. This is no less than an attempt to turn back the clock to Victorian era social policies.

I know that there is some cynicism amongst the public about single set piece demonstrations after the massive anti-war march in 2003 was pretty much ignored by the Labour government, but a low turn-out will be easily dismissed as a ‘vested interest’ protest by public sector employees. Communities (service users) need to show solidarity with the unions on this, and to be quite frank, to encourage the often ‘conservative’ minded union leaders to escalate the battle and call coordinated strikes which they can do legally, over things like the proposed changes to occupational pensions.

I also expect this protest to be a bit different from other large scale marches, in that I expect there will be perhaps hundreds of smaller direct action type protests surrounding the main demonstration, where organisations like UKUncut have led the way with sit ins at high street banks. It is important that large numbers attend the main protest to make the smaller flash mobs more difficult for the authorities to contain. There are hundreds of legitimate targets for protest in London which given a large main demonstration, will be impossible to police.

The establishment has been busy lecturing the population that there is no alternative to the cuts, but there is indeed an alternative to this devastation of our communities, it just doesn’t get much publicity from the mainstream media, so we must make them listen, and this protest can be the beginning of the process.

We could start by ditching the ridiculous white elephant that is the Trident nuclear weapons system, saving billions of pounds. Then there is increasing income tax and National Insurance contributions for high earners (those on more than £44k per year pay only 1% NI on earnings above this figure, whilst everyone working pays 11% below this amount). It is further estimated that £120 billion is lost in tax revenue from wealthy individuals and corporate bodies to tax avoidance and evasion, these loop holes should be closed. Investment in energy efficiency measures like insulation would save millions of pounds. And the tax exemption for private schools must end and the savings be channelled into state schooling. That’s a starter for ten anyway.

The UK deficit is not even all that large by historical standards and we have the sixth largest economy in the world as measured by GDP, so why the urgency to cut public provision so savagely? Well, that’s because these cuts are ideologically driven by a government that wants to shrink the state, whatever the level of public debt, and they want to try and get the pain out of the way now. So in four years’ time they can call a general election and hope everyone has forgotten what they did to country.

Now is the time to stop the ConDem government dead in its tracks, and we should demand a general election immediately, because this government doesn’t have a mandate to inflict these policies on the people, since most were not in the Tory or Lib Dem manifestos at last year’s general election. Mubarak said there was no alternative in Egypt, and look what happened to him.




LINK to Haringey Green Party blog

Parents Demand a Voice in Claremont's Future

Despite short notice and a clash with a school production, concerned parents  of Claremont High School students attended a meeting tonight at Kenton Methodist Church Hall about the possible conversion of the school to an Academy.

Parents reported that they had heard little about the proposals and were surprised to hear that a decision may be made tomorrow. One parent reported that he had e-mailed the school with six questions on the issue but had received no response. He had rejected sending his child to Wembley ARK Academy because he had reservations about the academies programme only to hear that the school where he had eventually sent her may itself become an academy.  Another parent commented that 'surgeries'  with senior staff and governors on the issue had been held when other meetings were taking place. There were also complaints about the difficulty of accessing the academy documents on the school's website. One document had a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with no answers. A letter that had been sent to parents on February 1st had not reached all the parents present and was not seen as even handed in its presentation of the case.

An exchange of opinion and information took place during the meeting and Hank Roberts of the NUT and ATL, two of the unions that had called the meeting, said this was precisely what the education unions wanted.  All they were asking was that parents should have the same opportunity as staff:  to hear both sides of the debate, time to make up their own minds, and then have the chance to express their views in a ballot. A teacher remarked that if the school leadership was so proud of what they were doing in seeking academy conversion why had they not proclaimed it, rather than be secretive. A parent asked why the school hadn't used recent parent meetings to inform them about the issue.

There was general agreement that parents should contact the school by e-mail to say they had not been properly consulted and asking for a delay in the decision so that parents could research the issue, attend a debate representing the case For and Against the proposal, and then cast a ballot. Some parents would attempt to speak to governors before the meeting.

Hank Roberts said that if there was a fair debate and a ballot that went against the unions' point of view they would accept that was the view of parents. The governing body would have to weigh up the views of staff and parents in considering whether to convert. He emphasised that it was all about democracy and that there was the possibility of legal action to ensure the fairness of the process.