Thursday, 2 August 2012

Cllr Allie's new allies have questions to answer on health and libraries

Guest blog by library campaigner Gaynor Lloyd


I refer to the “open letter” from James Allie published on Martin Francis’ required reading Wembley Matters blog.

Speaking as a Labour supporter of the “Old” variety - and so heartsick at understanding this - Mr Allie will forgive my saying that he displays a woeful lack of understanding of New Labour’s role in the impending car crash of the NHS currently being accelerated by the Coalition Government.

Thatcher may have started the bridgehead of the private sector into the NHS – of which our Shaping a Healthier Future – Brent/Ealing plans are just the latest manifestation - but Blair, his assistant and his Ministers of Health pushed it into pole position. 

·        Simon Stevens walked out of Blair’s private office to a senior position in the British arm of United Health (an American healthcare company) which was keen to bid for my doctors’ surgery, amongst many other NHS facilities. 

·      Alan Milburn left the Health Ministry to walk into a£30,000 a year post as adviser to Bridgepoint Capital which is a private equity company investing in Care UK – on your front page last week as “managing” the Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex - which is all we’ll have left if the consultation goes through and A&E goes. 

·        Patricia Hewitt came from McKinsey (American management consultants) into Blair’s Health Minister’s job and promptly set off introducing the necessary means to get the American health model here, with its opportunities to take profit from our marketised health service. McKinsey have a role in drafting the very constitution of the Clinical Care Commissioning Group that will take over the responsibility for commissioning health services in our Borough (just like many other Boroughs) – so many thanks to New Labour, Mr Allie, for facilitating that. I would just say – be very careful, Mr Allie who you jump into bed with on the grounds of their “Labour values”.

Tory Andrew Lansley has to take prime liability for the latest reforms, of course but, as far as I can see, whilst the Lib Dems may have been useless in stopping the recent legislation, they do seem to be the only one of the three main parties without some “high up” compromised by his/her role in this debacle.

Why I really needed to burst into print was to rebut Mr Allie’s disgraceful comments about Paul Lorber and his alleged “posturing” in relation to the library campaign. Has Mr Allie had any sort of clue about the facts behind these cuts and the Library campaign in particular, he might have amended the script of his open letter. 

I have been involved in Brent SOS campaign virtually from inception. I am no Lib Dem but at least I keep my political points to facts. If you feel like getting a few facts, try asking the Council’s officers, Mr Allie, about what appears to be their gross mismanagement by the Council of their trusteeship of the Barham Charity resulting in losses over the years while the Officers treated our building in Barham Park as though it was the Council’s own. Perhaps if the Council had paid the rent it ought to have done to the Charity for the use of its buildings, the alleged losses that the Council based its closure of Barham on, might have disappeared!

I cannot speak for other members of Brent SOS campaign but, in so far as Barham Library is concerned, without Paul we would be nowhere. He works unceasingly for the disadvantaged people of his Ward – crucially affected by the closure of “our library” at Barham. Mr Allie, ask the 210 members – mostly children – who have joined the Barham Library in exile. Ask their parents whether their children love coming to our Volunteer Library for the fun we have, the educational quizzes and activities we do, and the number of books we issue, as Paul devotes time week after week after week. He is an inspiration to us volunteers. He does all of this, because he cares about the effect of the closures – not for the purpose of political point scoring but for the disadvantaged of Brent. 

I sat in the Council Chamber (as I can only think you did but perhaps you had dropped off) while your new colleagues laughed as they acclaimed the closure of our libraries. Some of them have had the grace to come and look at the work we are doing – even commending it. I still have enough naivety to believe they meant it and you just aren’t up to speed, being a new recruit. Please, Councillor Allie, remember that comments like yours may win you a few friends in your new “safe” home with Brent Labour Group – but they don’t cut much ice with anyone who knows anything about Brent’s unique policy on library closures, or the figures behind it.

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

My choice for the Green Party leadership: Romayne and Will


Campaigning is hotting up for the Green Party leadership. In this video my personal choices for Leader and Deputy, Romayne Phoenix and Will Duckworth explain their policies.

'Betrayed' Brent Lib Dem councillor defects to Labour


Open letter from Councillor James Allie – Alperton Ward, Brent

It is with great sadness that after more than 10 years as a Liberal Democrat Councillor, this week I have resigned my membership of the party. I joined the Liberal Democrats because I wanted to help make Britain a fairer, greener and more equal country. I no longer believe that the Liberal Democrat Party has the will or the ability to make this happen. They have betrayed the values that I once shared with them.
However, I believe that the Labour Party, under Ed Miliband in Westminster and their new Leader of Brent Council Muhammed Butt, shares my values and that I can as part of a Labour administration, once again work to improve the lives of the people I represent. 

I have always struggled to lend my support to the devastating policies the Coalition is inflicting on Britain. I have also been sickened by the hypocritical things the Liberal Democrats do and say here in Brent. While my feelings about this have built up over the past two years, there are three issues that have finally pushed me to take this decision:
  1. The people I represent in Alperton are struggling more than ever under this government, but the Liberal Democrat Leadership in Westminster is prioritising reform of the House of Lords instead of a plan for economic growth.
  2. The closure of the A&E at Central Middlesex Hospital under this government is an astonishing betrayal. Brent MP Sarah Teather campaigned to keep the A&E when it was not under threat of closure. Now she is in government closing it. I am only sorry that I trusted her back then and I am sure that a number of her constituents feel the same way.
  3. The Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Brent, Paul Lorber, also knows very well that had the Lib Dems won the Local Election in 2010 they would have faced the same pressure to close the six libraries in Brent that have caused such a stir. It is the Coalition’s cuts to local government that have caused this problem and Cllr. Lorber’s posturing on the issue is just an insult to the library campaigners and the people of Brent.
I recognise that some of my constituents in Alperton will feel let down by my decision. I apologise to them if they feel I ought to have nailed my colours to the mast more firmly before the election. Equally I trust that many of them voted for me because they knew of the hard work that I have done as a councillor over the years.  I pledge to them that I will work harder than ever to improve the lives of everyone who lives in Alperton.

I know that there are many people who voted Lib Dem at the last election and indeed many Lib Dem members who feel as betrayed as I do by the party’s record in the coalition. I urge them to join me and to join the Labour Party.

Regards,
Councillor James Allie

Willesden Green regeneration consultation dates published

Further details of the August 8th consultation on Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment plans have now been published as well as new consultation dates in September:
Open day on Wednesday 8 August 
 
An open day will be held at Willesden Green Library Centre in The Library Lab to give you an update on the project. There will be plenty of opportunities for you to share your ideas on the future of the WGCC.

There will be a display at The Library Lab throughout August if you are not able to attend the open day.
 
Wednesday 8 August
11am to 8pm at The Library Lab in the WGLC with presentations at 12noon, 2pm, 4pm and 7pm


Further workshops with the following focus groups are planned for September:
 
Tuesday, September 4 - Seniors
Thursday, September 6 - Small and medium enterprises
Tuesday, September 11- Community groups
Thursday, September 13 - Ethnic minority groups
Tuesday, September 18 - Teens
Thursday, September 20 - Families with young children

Further information

If you need more information or have any questions about the planning application please contact Galliford Try’s dedicated freephone information line on 0800 298 7040 or email 
feedback@consultation-online.co.uk
Web: www.willesdengreen.co.uk  Twitter: @Will_GreenCC

Monday, 30 July 2012

Stand up for Central Middlesex A&E tomorrow


As public concern and anger mounts about the closure of Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency, North West London NHS is holding an open day on its proposals called 'Shaping a Healthier Future', renamed by some as 'Dictating a Dangerous Future'  as it includes no option of keeping Central Middlesex A&E open. It is likely that the closure will lead to the eventual down-grading of the hospital.

This is their blurb:

On Tuesday 31 July, the ‘Shaping a healthier future’ team will be hosting a public event at Patidar House, 22 London Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 7EX from 2pm – 8pm

              Local clinicians will host a dedicated question and answer session from 3pm - 4pm and 7pm - 8pm

The event is part of major public consultation programme taking place across North West London this summer Views are being sought on clinically-led proposals to improve healthcare for nearly 2m people in North West London in response to changing health needs, medical advances and rising standards.

Everyone will have the chance to learn more, put questions to the programme’s clinical leaders and fill in the consultation response form when the ‘Shaping a healthier future’ consultation roadshow comes to Brent.

It will be held at Patidar House, 22 London Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA9 7EX from 2pm to 8pm and will be attended by local clinicians and members of the programme team who will be on hand to talk local residents through the proposals. 

A further roadshow will be held in Brent on Saturday 29 September from 10am - 4pm at Harlesden Methodist Church.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

How Council Tax Support proposals will hit the poor


 The proactive Chalkhill Residents Association has put up posters around the estate urging residents('THIS IS IMPORTANT')  to respond to the consultation on Local Council Tax Support. The consultation ends on 10th August.  Unfortunately, despite paper copies of the consultation form being available in libraries and One Stop Shops, you really need to view the on-line documentation to get a full idea of the repercussions of the change from Council Tax Benefit to Local Council Tax Support. Unfortunately the complexity of these documents will put many off.  LINK   There was a public meeting about the changes at Brent Town Hall on Friday which unfortunately was not very well advertised with no details on the consultation site or on the leaflets. It didn't help that it was on the Olympics Opening Ceremony day.

In an article in the Guardian last week LINK Polly Toynbee put the changes into context stating that this was another example of the Coalition devolving the axe to councils: 
Here's the background: on average, households pay £1,000 a year in council tax. Until now, households on low incomes were exempt or paid only according to their means, so 5.9m households received council tax benefit. From next April, the benefit is cut by 10%, which is bad enough; but then insanity takes over. Each local authority will be given the sum that was handed out in benefit in their area (less 10%) to disperse as they please. They must keep paying the full benefit to pensioners and "the vulnerable". Each council must choose who is "vulnerable", as the government refuses to provide its own definition. Half of the recipients are pensioners, so protecting them means all other low-income households bear the whole cut, averaging 20%. People who live in areas with a lot of pensioners or a lot of the "vulnerable" will suffer the biggest cuts, as much as 30% or more.
Brent Council says that this represents a cut of at least £5.2m in 2013/14 taking account of the increasing number of people claiming benefit.  They say that if they were to retain the current Council Tax Benefit scheme it would have to reduce current services: 'Instead Brent is proposing a new scheme that is as fair as possible and in line with the needs of the community'. They are clearly caught between a rock and a hard place but end up carrying out the Coalition's cuts.

They set out these 'Key Principles':
Principle 1: Everyone should pay something
At present, claimants in receipt of income support, job seekers allowance (income based) and employment support allowance (income related) and other claimants not receiving these but with an income below the required level for their basic living needs, generally receive 100 per cent council tax benefit and therefore pay no council tax.

The council proposes that all working age claimants (unless protected) should pay at least 20 per cent of their council tax under the CTS scheme.
Principle 2: The most vulnerable claimants should be protected (from the minimum contribution)
Claimants will be protected from the 20 per cent minimum contribution if they or their partner or dependants are entitled to a disability premium or enhanced disability premium (normally given where disability living allowance has been awarded) or disabled earnings disregard, or the claimant is in receipt of disabled persons reduction for council tax purposes, war disablement pension or war widow’s pension.
Principle 3: The scheme should incentivise work
At present, the first £5 of a single claimant’s earnings, £10 of a couple’s earnings and £25 of a single parent’s earnings are not counted when calculating their weekly income for the purposes of determining their entitlement to council tax benefit.

The council proposes to increase this level by an additional £10 a week under its proposed scheme for single claimants, couples and single parents. This would mean that the first £15 of a single claimant’s earnings, £20 of a couple’s earnings and £35 of a single parent’s earnings would not be counted when calculating their entitlement to council tax support
Principle 4: Everyone in the household should contribute
At present, a deduction is generally made from potential weekly council tax benefit entitlement in respect of other adults aged 18 or over living in the claimant’s home. These are referred to as non-dependants. A non-dependant is a person who is living with the claimant but who is not dependent upon them, and not living in their home on a commercial basis, (i.e. as a joint tenant or sub tenant). Non-dependants include an adult son or daughter, a mother or father, friend etc of the claimant.

These people are assumed to be giving the claimant some money towards their council tax regardless of whether or not they are actually doing so. This assumed contribution is based upon the non-dependant's circumstances.
The draft scheme proposes doubling existing levels of these contributions. Additionally for other adults in receipt of job seekers allowance (income based), a charge of £6.60 is proposed instead of no charge as at present.
The current deduction rates applied to council tax benefit in 2012/13 and the proposed rates for the council’s local CTS scheme are shown in Appendix C.
Principle 5: Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection
The draft scheme proposes to continue to reduce entitlement to help with Council Tax as income / earnings increase. However, it is proposed that the calculation of this is adjusted so that the rate at which Council Tax Support reduces where weekly income exceeds basic living needs is 30p in every pound rather than the 20p currently applied. This is referred to as the taper and it is often expressed in proportionate terms. It is currently 20% per week for the existing Council Tax Benefit scheme and will become 30% per week under the proposed Council Tax Support scheme.
Principle 6: Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings
At present, working age claimants with savings and investments above £16,000 are generally not entitled to council tax benefit.

Our proposal is that working age claimants with capital such as savings and investments amounting to over £6,000 shall not be entitled to council tax support
Feature 1: Removal of second adult rebate scheme for working age claimants
The current second adult rebate scheme (whereby claimants whose own income is too high to receive CTB, but have other adult(s) in the household whose income is low, can receive a council tax discount of up to 25 per cent) is to be abolished for working age claimants.
Feature 2: Rate of allowances and premiums to be frozen at 2012/2013
levels
Premiums and personal allowances used to determine basic living needs for a claimant and their family when calculating entitlement to CTS shall be held at the rates applied for 2012/13.
 For practical purposes the most valuable document is probably worked calculations for particular circumstances and so I have made that available below:



The document sets out what the claimant will have to pay each week  from 1st April 2013 when Local Council Tax Support comes in, compared to current Council Tax Benefit. In the examples below the extra money the claimant will have to find (the difference between Council Tax liability and Council Tax Support) is in blue.
  • A Single Person in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) living in a Band A property. Claimant will need to pay extra £2.62 weekly 
  • A Couple with 3 children, in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) and Child Tax Credits, living in a Band D property. £5.24 weekly 
  •  A Single Parent with 2 children, in receipt of Income Support and Child Tax Credits, living in a Band C property. £3.49 weekly 
  • A Couple with 2 children, in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) and Child Tax Credits, living with another adult (i.e. a non-dependant) in a Band F property. The non-dependant is also in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based). £14.17 weekly 
  • A Single Person earning £90.00 per week and living in a Band A property. £3.82 weekl
  • A Couple with 3 children, with a total income of £400 per week (made up of Self-Employed Earnings and Tax Credits), living in a band D property £16.96 weekly
  • A Single Parent with 2 children, with a total income of £270 per week (made up of Salary and Tax Credits), living in a Band C property £3.49 weekly
These extra payments will of course come on top of the housing benefit cap and other changes which will make the poor worse off.

I would welcome a report of guest blog from anyone who was at Friday's meeting. Send to mafran@globalnet.co.uk

Universal free school meals improve attainment and diet


The Green Party has campaigned for universal provision of free school meals in the past and research published last week provides evidence for the efficacy of this policy.  Apart from the benefits to children outlined below the policy would end costly, cumbersome and bureaucratic administration of Free School Meals applications by local authorities, the collection of 'dinner money'  in schools and enable planning of a school meals service based on overall pupil numbers.

The findings should make the Our Lady of Grace Primary school, Dollis Hill, think again about its plans to do away with hot meals and provide sandwiches only to children entitled to free school meals.

From School Food Trust LINK
Research measuring the impact of offering free school meals to more children in specific areas of England found significant improvements in their attainment, as well as benefits for diet and take up of healthy school meals.
The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and Bryson Purdon Social Research looked at pilot schemes in Durham and Newham which offered free school meals to all children at primary school, and at a scheme in Wolverhampton to extend eligibility for free school meals to include families receiving working tax credits. Their findings include:
  • The universal pilot had a significant positive impact on attainment for primary school pupils at Key Stages 1 and 2, with pupils in the pilot areas making between four and eight weeks’ more progress than similar pupils in comparison areas. These effects could have arisen either through the provision of free school meals directly or through the wider activities that accompanied the pilot (such as the promotion of school meals and healthy eating to pupils and parents) or both.
  • The improvements in attainment tended to be strongest amongst pupils from less affluent families and amongst those with lower prior attainment, though It should be noted that the effects for different types of pupils are not always significantly different from one another.
  • The impact of the universal entitlement pilot on the take-up of school meals amongst primary school pupils was generally large, positive and significant. Most pupils in the universal pilot areas took up the offer of free school meals. Around nine in ten primary school pupils were taking at least one school meal per week by the end of the pilot compared with around six in ten similar pupils in a set of similar comparison areas.
  • Take-up of school meals increased for pupils who were not eligible (that is, entitled and registered) for free school meals before the pilot was introduced, but it also increased among pupils who were already eligible for free school meals.
  • In the universal pilot areas, the increased take-up of school meals led to a shift in the types of food that pupils ate at lunchtime, away from foods typically associated with packed lunches towards those associated with hot meals.
  • Children in the universal pilot areas were less likely to report eating crisps at least once a day than children in comparison areas. This suggests that the reduction in crisp consumption at lunchtime did not lead children to eat crisps in the afternoon.
  • The universal pilot also had a positive impact on parents’ perceptions of children’s willingness to try new food. Two-thirds of parents in these areas agreed that their child was willing to try new food, compared with 57 per cent in comparison areas. This finding supports evidence from case studies that parents felt that taking school meals in the pilot had encouraged their child to try a wider range of foods.
Our Chief Executive, Judy Hargadon, said: “These findings are serious food for thought. Offering free school meals to every child in Newham and Durham helped to make them more likely to eat a better diet at school, do significantly better in class – with an average of two months more progress by pupils at key stages 1 and 2 – and less fussy about what they ate at home.

“The investment in the pilots is dwarfed by the spiralling costs of poor diet to the NHS and our national spend on efforts to close the attainment gap between children from poorer backgrounds and their peers. What’s particularly interesting is that researchers say the impact on attainment seemed be strongest among those from lower income backgrounds, and those who weren’t doing so well at school before.
“Feedback from parents taking part in the Wolverhampton pilot has also been very positive. That both Wolverhampton and Newham councils decided to continue their schemes beyond the pilot stage and that Durham is now offering school meals at a reduced price – at a time when demand for limited funding is so fierce – is testament to the value they see in good school food to support children, families and schools.
“These results show how important it is to ensure every child living in poverty gets a free school meal and – at the very least – that we keep good school meals affordable for everyone else. It’s a reminder for policymakers, head teachers, local authorities and parents that investing in good food for children at school pays back a big return for their diet and education.”
The full report can be viewed at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR227#downloadableparts

Saturday, 28 July 2012

Wembley Central station patched up in the nick of time

Wembley Central station in June
Signs of possible work last week

Wembley Central station on Wednesday

I have been recording how the condition of Wembley Central station has deteriorated over the last few years of regeneration and speculated about whether any  improvements to the station exterior would be ready by the time of the Olympics. Well I can report that a quick patch up job hiding the exposed joints was done by Wednesday but it is far from the smart station that we were promised in the regeneration publicity. See below: