School financial mismanagement under scrutiny tomorrow

Following the controversy at Copland High School over allegedly illegal bonus payments, Brent Council has tightened up its audit arrangements. The 'Copland Six' are still to stand trial but meanwhile several other head teachers and other staff have been suspended while the possibility of financial management irregularities are investigated. Some have faced disciplinary action leading to dismissal.  There has been publicity about these events in local newspapers and the Evening Standard and the Times Educational Supplement.

Some commentary has suggested that this is a particular problem in Brent while others have suggested that the problem occurs elsewhere but because of Brent's experience it has been better at uncovering it. Generally there is a concern that as schools become more independent of local councils, being set up as 'free' schools or when they convert to academy status, that there may be more occurrences.The report from the Director of Finance and Corporate Services and the Director Children's Services which will be considered on Thursday by the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee states that Copland, as a foundation school, had made its own audit arrangements, rather than be visited by the local authority team, until 2009: 'The significant additions (to pay) were not picked up during any of the external audits conducted annually at the school.'

Although there may be deliberate attempts as fraud it may also be the case that some of the occurrences are the result of inexperience or incompetence on the part of headteachers and governing bodies. Although the local authority offers financial training to headteachers they do not have a business management background and their main task remains the management of teaching and learning.

Two main issues have emerged which the report says the Council has addressed:

Senior Leadership Pay: a key issue that had been identified through the audit process relates to schools complying with the statutory requirements regarding the setting of pay levels for Headteachers and other Senior Leadership posts. The regulations are complex but nevertheless compliance with them is a statutory requirement and a comprehensive action plan was put in place by the Council to both support and challenge schools to ensure compliance. A great deal of progress has been successfully made as set out in Appendix C which shows the detailed action undertaken by the Council. Further on-going work is necessary to ensure continued
compliance with the regulations.

Leasing: In 2010, the Council identified that a number of schools had entered into very unfavourable leasing arrangements with large finance companies for the hire of equipment such as photocopiers. The Council is of the view that these leases should be treated as being void from the outset, as the schools in question did not have the legal power (‘vires’) to enter into them. If the leases were enforceable, they would have a negative impact on the schools’ financial positions. There are various grounds as to why the Council argues the leases should be considered void. The Council has taken the following action in order to protect the public funds exposed to these purported leases:

• Sent a number of letters and uploaded intranet postings clarifying the importance of complying with the leasing requirements set out in the Council’s Financial Regulations.
• Arranged for Council officers to meet with school officers where appropriate in order to discuss leasing issues.
• Hosted a number of presentations at Governor, Headteacher and Bursar meetings, clarifying the requirements of a lawful lease and offering support to schools that may have ostensibly entered into leases which are void in law, in order to encourage schools to obtain legal advice.
• Referred schools to the Council’s internal and external solicitors who are able to advise the schools (the content of the advice is confidential and subject to legal privilege).
• Obtained advice from a QC (the content of which is confidential and subject to legal privilege).
• Facilitated court action: A number of schools have stopped paying the sums purportedly due under these purported leases. As a result, one finance company has issued legal proceedings against two separate schools for amounts allegedly due. The Council’s solicitors have been instructed by the two schools to defend these claims. The schools are counter-claiming for restitution of the sums paid under the purported leases. The cases are on-going.
• Released guidance to all schools setting out the framework agreements
available, in order to help schools purchase or lease equipment at favourable rates.
• Hosted regular leasing / procurement training sessions with school bursars.

Using a traffic light system of Assurance about Audut Outcomes for audits in 2011-12 the report gives 7 primary schools a green light (substantial), 9 an amber (limited) and 4 a red (nil). The report gives a long list of issues that have been identified 'in the majority of schools' over the last two years. These cover Governance, Procurement, Unofficial Funds, Budgeting, Income and Banking.

The Head of Audit's opinion reported to the Audit Committee for 2010-11 sums up some of the issues:

I also remain concerned about the apparent lack of financial control within a significant minority of the council’s schools and the general approach to internal audit findings. Whilst schools are responsible for their own budgets, they are required to adhere to both legal requirements and to financial regulations issued by the council. These ensure public money is properly spent and accounted for. A number of schools are demonstrating a lack of compliance with basic procurement regulations. This is placing schools at risk of failing to achieve value for money and at risk of potential legal challenge where EU procurement regulations apply.

In addition, a number of schools are failing to adhere to the national rules concerning teacher’s pay, specifically in relation to head teacher pay being outside the prescribed bandings determined by the school size. Although, in certain circumstances schools are permitted to pay above the maximum group range, I consider that in a number of cases these circumstances may not apply and school governing bodies may be paying above the ranges set out within the national conditions document to facilitate incremental increases in pay once the natural pay cap, relative to the size of school, has been reached. This is further exacerbated by Governing Bodies not always being diligent in their recording of the reasons for granting permission to exceed to cap thus placing the school at risk of challenge.

In response to the issue of headteacher (and thus deputy headteacher) pay being outside the criteria published in the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD)  the Children and Families Department in October 2011 asked chairs of governors to return headteacher pay information. The report states that 'many schools failed to respond to this request in a reasonable timescale and it is only now that a full picture is emerging' and schools are being supported and challenged to ensure compliance with the STPCD.

Clearly this report raises important issues about probity, accountability and governance and deserves thorough discussion tomorrow.

The meeting takes place at 7pm in Committee Rooms 1 and 2 at Brent Town Hall on Thursday  July 19th Agenda: HERE

Declaration of interest: I am chair of governors at two primary schools and a former primary headteacher - all in Brent. I do not have a Swiss bank account!

Housing crisis arrives on Town Hall doorstep

The housing crisis came to the steps of Brent Town Hall yesterday evening when the Counihan family and their supporters demonstrated as the Brent Executive met to rubber stamp a series of far reaching decisions.

Their reception was mixed with some members of the Executive wanting to find out about the  family's plight while others told the family that  they had no choice but to move out of London in order to get affordable housing.

As the benefit income cap and housing benefit cap bite, along with changes in council tax benefits, more and more Brent families will be suffering the same fate. Although the demonstrators recognised that the changes have been brought about by Coalition Government policies they did expect more of a fightback on behalf of Brent residents from a Labour Council, rather than acquiescence in disastrous policies.

Officers recommend go ahead for ASDA petrol station

The planning application for the building of a petrol station in the car park of the Wembley ASDA store was called in by Barnhill councillors Michael Pavey and Shafique Choudhary.  It will be considered by the Planning Committee on July 25th.

The officers reject objections that have been made on grounds of increased traffic congestion, increased danger for children and the elderly at the Forty Lane/King's Drive/ASDA intersection, and noise and nuisance to neighbours. They say that it is not within the planning system's purview to consider whether this would lead to over-provision of petrol stations in the vicinity.

On the capacity of the ASDA entrance road, Forty Lane and King's Drive intersection the report says:

Previous capacity analysis carried out for the signalised junction at the Asda entrance onto Forty Lane suggests there is plenty of spare capacity at this particular junction, so the predicted increases in flows are not considered likely to give rise to any junction capacity problems at the site access

The photograph below, taken recently, shows traffic at the intersection:

Traffic at ASDA entrance road/.Forty Lane/King's Drive

No Brent free school in today's list

The free schools in London

The list of approved free school applications published today  does not include any in Brent. Of the102 schools:

• 40 are primary schools
• 28 are secondary school
• 10 are "all through schools" - primary and secondary combined 
• 34 are in the London area
• Five are independent schools which are joining the state sector
• Five are special schools
• 12 are "alternative provision" such as schools for those expelled from mainstream schools 

Interestingly Education Investor, the website of people expecting to make a profit from education stated:

It remains unclear how buildings for the new schools are to be funded, however. Capital funding for the projects has yet to be decided, and government advisors said it was too early to comment on specific projects.

 

Government figures show that the average capital cost of the first wave of free schools was expected to be between £4.6 million and £5.4 million. If repeated, this would mean that buildings for the 152 schools still in the pipeline would cost upwards of £700 million.

 

Last November, the Treasury allocated £600 million to the programme.

Just think what the local authority system could do with that £700m!

'Super contractor' bundle for Brent's waste, street sweeping and parks?

'Geometrical' plant maintenance via power saw

The above picture illustrates the kind of parks maintenance we can expect with sub-contractors: neat and tidy but totally insensitive to any appreciation of the natural and aesthetic nature of shrubs. This was well illustrated by bags of compostable materials consisting of flowers in bud and blossom that had been shorn off in a shrub equivalent of a 'Number 1'.

Brent Council has said no more about its plans to privatise the Parks Maintenance Service but I understand that the Council's Environment and Neighbourhood Services Department is now looking to procure a 'super-contractor' to take on waste management, street cleaning and parks maintenance as one deal.

This will rule out any in-house bid by the present highly skilled parks maintenance team as well as  contractors who specialise only in waste. It will favour the current holder of the waste and street sleaning contract, Veolia, which already provides parks maintenance services in other boroughs and has the Regents Park contract.

Veolia has attracted adverse publicity because of its activities in Israel and the occupied territories and gave Brent Council a rough time over changes in the waste management and street sweeping contract almost a year ago. LINK

Will Brent Council take on the fight to save Central Middlesex A&E?

In a recent posting I called on Brent Council to take a proactive stance in fighting the proposals for closure of the Central Middlesex Hospital (Park Royal) Accident and Emergency. Ealing Council have already take up such a position.

A resolution at the last Brent Council meeting proposed by Cllr Krupesh Hirani (Lead member for Health and adult Care) didn't quite do that but was a step in the right direction.

This Council condemns the Tory and Liberal Democrat Government for the lack of consideration to Brent residents over the likely closure of Accident and Emergency (A&E) services at the Central Middlesex Hospital, which will lead to people in the poorest part of Brent, having to travel longer distances to address life threatening imminent needs.

Brent Labour recently had a meeting on the NHS which was addressed by  Fiona Twycross, a Labour Assembly Member for London. Perhaps a more militant stance will emerge from that meeting. Is is certainly something the Council should be doing on behalf of its citizens.

Meanwhile at the Willesden Area Consultation Forum the item on 'Shaping a Healthier Future'  was curtailed because Dr Mark Spencer who was giving the talk had another meeting to attend. The result was a rush through a PowerPoint presentation and very little time for elaboration, questions or discussions. Neither Spencer or Abbas Mirza (Communications Engagement Manager for NHS North West London, were available to speak to residents at the break. This was scandalous given the far-reaching and poentially life and death issues being discussed. At the beginning of the presentation Mirza said, 'these are just proposals - nothing has been decided'  but in response to a question from me, Spencer confirmed that there was no option to keep Central Middlesex A and E open. Clearly its closure has been decided ahead of consultation.

Dr Spencer claimed that the A and E at Centrtal Middlesex was under-used, that many who did use it, used it wrongly and would be catered for by other proposals. He said that the privately run (by Care UK) Urgent Care Centre could answer most emergency needs. Central Middlesex Hospital would eventually become a 'localised' hospital for planned admissions only.  Asked by an audience member which A and E they could go to instead, he said that that was a decision they could make for themselves. I am sure I will enjoy exercising that choice when I next get knocked off my bike!

Earlier in the meeting I did a Soapbox where I publicised the campaign that has been formed to oppose the closure of Central Middlesex Hospital A and E and the hospital's run-down and the defend the NHS against cuts and privatisation. We will be marching from Harlesden to Central Middlesex Hospital on Saturday September 15th to buiold support for the campaign. It would be great of Labour councillors joined us.

In my Soapbox speech I said that losing an Accident and Emergency ward was often the first chapter in the running down and eventual closure of a hospital. As a qualified first-aider in  local schools I had often had recourse to Central Mid A and E for ill and injured pupils and knew of its worth. 

I pointed out the need for a  A and E in this poorest part of the borough that would be readily accessible to local residents who were reliant on public transport. Public transport links with Northwick Park Hospital (the proposed alternative A and E) were very poor.

The local area has many possible sites for major incidents requiring A and E and emergency operation facilities. These include the main Euston-Birmingham Railway line, the Bakerloo and Overground Line, Chiltern Line and Jubilee/Metropolitan. Major Roads including the North Circular, Harrow Road and Kilburn High Road. Large industrial areas in Park Royal and around Neasden Goods Yard and the major venues of Wembley Stadium and Wembley Arena.  Accidents at any of these places could involve many people requiring emergency treatment or hospital admission. Could the reduced provision of A and E cope?

Cllr Lesley Jones, who was chairing the meeting, said that the council had been pressurising Transport for London to extend the 18 bus route to Northwick Park for a long time and would continue to do so.

End the Counihan family's stress. Demonstrate on Monday.

Message from campaigners for the Counihan family.  Their plight will be repeated many times across the borough as the Coalition's housing benefit cap hits more families.

 

 We are coming together to demand justice from Brent Council for the Counihan family, who have been victimised by the actions of our council support agencies. We will be demonstrating outside Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley on Monday July 16th at 6pm ahead of the Brent Council Executive's Meeting. Your support will be appreciated.

Isabel and Anthony Counihan and their five children, Vinnie, Aidan, AJ, Orla and Sarah, have been shunted out of the Brent to temporary housing in Ealing where they have been left since April2011 waiting for the Council to even make a decision on their situation, let alone re-house them in Brent.

Their story is an extreme and devastating example of the way lives are being ruined by benefit cuts, and the refusal to build council housing and regulate the private housing sector.  We are living in times when the powers that be think they can get away with punishing working-class people for the fact of our being poor.

Across London poorer people, especially young people, are being pushed out of the city to make way for the better off. Glenda Jackson MP's response to the family's plight was “you can't afford to live in London”. This has been echoed by council officers: Brent Housing Advice advised the family “they could afford to live in Wales”.

We are saying to Brent Council that they must immediately find the family appropriate, secure and really affordable housing in the borough -and put an end to the unbearable stress and hardship that would have totally broken many people long before now.

The Counihans have nothing to justify -their need is clear and we support them unconditionally -but their story may help illustrate how the council is failing in their moral and legal responsibility to assist people in difficult circumstances, but instead mounting attack after attack to remove people from the area.

We ask you to join us in supporting the Counihans and invite other people facing similar injustices to come forward and challenge together the vicious policies and practices of the council.

For more information, to support the Counihan’s, or raise your own issue contact:

Lesley Ryan -London Irish Centre (personal capacity): 07894 348 610

Gerry Downing -Brent Trades Union Council and Brent Fightback: 07792 966 910

Clarence -Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group: 07752 574 943

Care UK or DON'T Care UK?

Guest blog by Sarah Cox:

If the Accident and Emergency Department at Central Middlesex Hospital closes, as proposed in every option in the NHS NW London consultation document Shaping a Healthier Future, residents in Brent’s poorest wards with the greatest health needs will be at the mercy of private health care provider Care UK which runs the Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex.

Urgent Care Centres are designed to take the pressure off A & E departments by dealing with minor injuries and less serious illnesses. Fine, but one of the reasons people go to their doctors or to A & E when the doctor isn’t available, is that they are not medically qualified so don’t necessarily know how serious (or not) their condition is. One of the NW London NHS documents gives the example of a mother who takes her baby to A & E with a high temperature. She is told that the baby is just teething. One of the functions of qualified medical staff should be to reassure patients. What about the case where the baby’s high temperature is not caused by teething but is a symptom of meningitis? Meningitis is hard to diagnose, but if not treated very quickly, can be fatal. There have been reports of Urgent Care Centres failing to spot meningitis and sending a stroke victim home http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5185165/Urgent-care-centres-putting-patients-lives-at-risk-doctors-warn.html

 

As a patient, Care UK’s record doesn’t fill me with confidence: 

X-rays: At the CMH Urgent Care Centre, Care UK failed to carry out the required checks on 6,000 x-rays, missing such details as broken bones http://www.channel4.com/news/flaw-leads-to-review-of-patient-x-ray%20records. All x-rays should be reviewed by a specialist to make sure that nothing has been missed, they should also be checked against the child protection register and GPs should be informed when their patients have attended the UCC. Care UK neglected to do this and took more than a year to find the flaw in their system and start to review the x-rays. Channel 4 reports, ‘Asked how it had happened, Care UK blamed it on "a couple of changes in the management structure of the team that ran the centre". They also failed to report it to the Care Quality Commission. Care UK said that although it was not legally obliged to do this, it "probably should have told CQC, but nobody picked up the phone".’ What a caring attitude!

The contract to run the CMH Urgent Care Centre was given to Care UK by the former Brent Primary Care Trust. All eight Brent NHS clinical directors wrote urging them not to sign the contract, but were told they were too late. Former members of that PCT are now non-executive directors of Care UK and NHS Brent is tied into a contract with Care UK that they cannot get out of.

Friends in high places: The wife of Care UK’s then chairman gave £21,000 to Andrew Lansley when he was shadow Health minister to help run his constituency office in the run up to the general election, an investment that has certainly paid off when you see how many contracts the firm has been awarded in the NHS and social care sectors. 

Tax avoidance  Care UK, which operates NHS treatment centres, walk-in centres and mental health services, has a reduced tax bill by taking out loans through the Channel Islands stock exchange and coming to an agreement with HMRC Guardian 17.3.12 Care UK join the likes of Vodaphone and Jimmy Carr in claiming that they’ve done nothing wrong.

There’s more about Care UK, but I’ll leave that for the next instalment. What’s your experience of Care UK or specifically of the Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex?