A 'Green' white elephant is still a white elephant

Tours to show off the New Civic Centre's green credentials ere held on Saturday

Cllr Powney accuses Brent Greens of being against any new building. Strangely something that Gareth Daniel accused me of last year when I had criticised the Civic Centre project. Nonsense of course.

When I was a headteacher we had a wonderful new green children's nursery built at Park Lane Primary with a green roof, underfloor heating etc LINK and it replaced a wooden hut that was falling down. The nursery was necessary  as the then Labour Council eventually agreed after a campaign by parents, governors, teachers and children. In contrast Brent council tax payers were never consulted about a new civic centre.

Park Lane nursery, recently demolished to make way for school expansion

From the inside

 The issue with the Civic Centre as far as I am concerned is whether a building of such grandiose design, on a prime site (that nonetheless will make it inaccessible on event days and evenings),  is necessary, or desirable, in an era of austerity and a shrinking council labour force. How 'green' it may be is not the main issue but all the same the carbon cost of mining materials and transporting them should be part of the balance sheet and the alternative of refurbishing an existing building (say Unisys House) should have been considered.

It is with us now and we will see if it is still a great idea in 25 year's time when it will have repaid the £102,000,000 spent on it. I'll have to stay alive that long just to have the pleasure of telling Cllr Powney 'I told you so!'.

Meanwhile Coalition proposals increase risk to abused children claim experts

In all the controversy over Jimmy Savile and Newsnight the media have ignored proposals from the Coalition that, as part of their anti-red tape anti-health and safety agenda and privatisation agenda, could increase risks to children.

In a piece of research for the trade union Prospect LINK Dr Liz Davies, reader in Child Protection at London Metropolitan University and Roger Kline, Social Care spokesman for the Aspect group of Prospect. claim that the Working Together revision documents are 'not fit for purpose'. These documents have been the backbone for child protection work for many years.

In the light of recent revelations and in the current economic climate where there are increased pressures on adults through benefit cuts, low wages and unemployment, children are likely to become more susceptible to abuse and neglect.

Summarising their concerns, Davies, Kline and their co-authors argue:

1. The current proposals to revise Working Together are seriously flawed and dangerous. There are significant, and fundamental misunderstandings of what is required to protect children from harm. We are convinced the proposals will undermine multi-agency and multidisciplinary working. The failure to be sufficiently prescriptive and mandate certain measures will lead not only to confusion and mistakes but will undermine the ability of staff within each agency to prioritise and access resources to support the work of child protection.

2. The proposals appear to be driven by a desire to, ‘cut red tape’ but are undoubtedly part of the Government’s localism agenda. Through deregulation and the privatisation of services the proposals are just one aspect of the rolling back of the Welfare State. No evidence has been provided that such fundamental changes will improve child protection or responses to children in need, or that even the status quo will be maintained. We believe that, in fact, the proposed changes constitute a serious risk to vulnerable children. We strongly recommend that this revision be withdrawn so that a more considered, evidence based discussion can take place about what changes might be needed to Working Together in order to support good practice by the national provision of proportionate and relevant statutory guidance that is fit for purpose.

3. The objectives of the Revision include, ‘to provide the essentials that will enable and encourage good cross-agency working – so that all organisations understand what they should do to provide a coordinated approach to safeguarding’ (DfE 2012). In this submission we argue that, should it be approved as guidance, it will achieve the exact opposite. It is a non-evidence based attempt to drastically reduce the statutory guidance and we believe it will certainly leave the most vulnerable children at risk of harm unprotected as well as risk a reduction in services for those assessed as children in need.

4. The Revision promotes a form of professional dangerousness where children are placed at risk by the actions and omissions of policy makers. For reasons, presumably, of expediency, the guidance appears to have been cut merely to reduce page length and the impact assessments (2012 a&b) are clear that the changes would lead to cost cutting. The Revision sits well with government agendas of privatisation, deregulation and cuts. As the campaign Every Child in Need cites, ‘basic minimum national standards and requirements are essential. A hands-off approach, allowing local authorities to do what they want, when they want, is dangerous. Even the Government’s own impact assessment recognises this – it accepts that, “there is a risk of negative impact on children if central government is less prescriptive (DfE 2012b) That is not a risk we should be taking’ (Every Child in Need Campaign 2012).

5.. These changes come at a time when there is evidence of unprecedented increase in serious crime against children. Child abuse occurs within families and this context provided the focus of the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011). However, there is a vast international child abuse industry that exploits children and includes trafficking for commercial, domestic and sexual exploitation, online abuse, the illegal adoption trade, the illegal organ trade, forced marriage and the trade in abusive images. These are not marginal issues but are addressed by child protection professionals on a regular basis and yet the Laming and Munro reviews (2009 and 2011) were narrow in focus relating only to abuse within the family. Therefore the Revision, which is based on models of practice recommended in these recent reviews, omits examination of complex joint investigative work required to identify and target perpetrators and protect numbers of children in the context of organised crime. Ironically, the government only recently published an action plan with regard to child sexual exploitation (DfE 2011a) and yet comprehensive, existing Working Together guidance is being discarded (DfES 2009).

With the history of serious child abuse cases in Brent, and indeed deaths of children such children, it is imperative that Brent Council takes on these concerns and ensure that their procedures are effective and go beyond the Coalition's suggestions and urge the London Safeguarding Board to do the same.

 

Department for Education (DfE)(2011a) Tackling child sexual exploitation. Action Plan. London. DfE . Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/safeguardingchildren/a00200288/tackling-child-sexual-exploitation

Department for Education (2011b) Tim Loughton M.P. response to parliamentary question by Andrea Leadsom M.P. 13th December 086572. Available from; http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/423978/Munro_report_progress_15kb.pdf

Department for Education (DfE) (2012a) Impact assessment. Revision of Working Together to

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20managing%20individual%20cases%20%20%20framework%20for%20assessment.pdf

Department for Education (DfE) (2012b) Impact assessment. Managing individual cases.Framework of Assessment. Available from: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/i/impact%20assessment%20%20%20working%20together%20to%20safeguard%20children.pdf

Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2009) Safeguarding children and

young people from sexual exploitation. London. The Stationery Office

It ain't over 'til the wrecking ball swings

On Saturday I received a letter from  the Brent Planning Department informing me that Galliford Try PC has submitted planning applications to Brent Council (12/2924 and 12/2925) for the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library.

The letter gave a period of 21 days from the letter date of November 8th 2012 for receipt of comments. However it also said that plans 'should' be available on the council website 'by 13th November'. I have written to Brent Planning Department to say that it is not possible toe to comment on plans that are not available and asked for confirmation that the 21 days will run from the date that they are  uploaded to the planning portal on Brent's website.

You would think that after all the controversy over the demolition and regeneration that the council would try and get this right.  Perhaps the rush to get this unpopular project on the road by January has led to yet another decision that will alienate the local community unnecessarily. Unless it is of course aimed at giving Keep Willesden Green campaigners and local residents as little time as possible to comment on extremely detailed plans. Surely they have more respect for local electors than that?

Link to Planning Application

6.20pm on Monday: I have received the following  response from Andy Bates at Brent Planning about the planning deadline.

Dear Mr Francis, 

I am writing to confirm that the applications will be advertised in the same way as the earlier submissions (press and site notices) and, as a result, the 21 day consultation period will always expire 21 days after the last consultation takes place. In this case, this is likely to be the press notice. My Colleagues in Planning Technical support tell me that this Notice is likely to appear at the end of this week, so the period you are querying will be 21 days from then. 

The intention would be to get to the planning applications to the earliest Planning Committee that would be in a position to consider the proposals. I would imagine that this would be likely to be in January/February 2013.

I would argue that this is only fair if the plans are on the website by publication day which is November 15th for our two main local newspapers.

Butt reaffirms Council commitment to London Living Wage

In his report to Full Council, Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt reiterates the Executive's support for the London Living Wage to be paid to directly employed council workers. The London Living Wage was recently increased to £8.55 an hour.  The Living Wage is distinct from the lower Minimum Wage, which in London is barely a survival wage. The council also aims to extend the living wage to all its contractors.

It is believed that payment of the London Living Wage was one of the issues behind the conflict between Butt and Gareth Daniel which led to the latter leaving his job and it remains a controversial issue within the Labour group on the council. Its implementation in Brent has been accompanied by the intention to impose flexible work patterns on the entire Brent Council workforce.

In his report Muhammed Butt says:

We will become a Living Wage Borough. We believe that it is a fundamental moral principle that people should be paid enough to more than simply exist. We will with other Public and private sector organisations become accredited with the Living Wage Foundation. In doing this we commit to extending the living wage principles which we already adhere to with our own staff to all those contracts outside of Social Care, and also to a dialogue with the Living Wage Foundation and other Councils to find an affordable way to extend our living wage offer to all contracts. Fair pay is essential to address our three key tenets of fairness, supporting community and the local economy.

I welcome the commitment to pay the London Living Wage at a time when families and individuals are faced with so much pressure due to Coalition and council cuts.  What many people don’t know is that the Living Wage Unit was set up under Ken Livingstone’s administration thanks to the Green Party members of the London Assembly, Jenny Jones and Darren Johnson.

They held a casting vote over the Mayor’s budget for four years and used it to get a fair deal for all London government’s employees and create the Living Wage Unit to calculate the amount needed to get by in the capital

Brent to 'Carry on Regardless' despite super-contract drop-outs

I reported on November 1st that the Communications Department at Brent Council had refused to talk to me about the future of the four borough supercontract for the public realm after the withdrawal of Barnet and Richmond councils.

The current edition of the Kilburn Times has followed up the story. A Brent Council spokesman told them that 'ideally' they would like to join forces with other boroughs but would press on with the contract regardless.

The Brent Executive has already delegated powers to spend £6m on a new depot to Andy Donald. Director  and Cllr George Crane. lead member for Major Projects and Regeneration

Kensal Rise Library campaigners gain support in Oxford

News from Jodi Gramigni about yesterday's demonstration at All Souls College, Oxford

The Save Kensal Rise Library Rally in Oxford was a great success with support from Oxford students, the community, and even campus security.

All Souls were invited to join us, and although they weren't available on the day, a meeting to discuss their plans for Kensal Rise library is scheduled in a weeks time.

I hope you enjoy the pictures of the day, and a special thanks to all of the children, they were brilliant!
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=oa.425159230870843&type=1

Many thanks for your continued support.
Kind regards,
Jodi

Butt: First priority is maintaining budget integrity and making savings

In his report on administration priorities for the November 19th Full Council meeting, Council Leader Muhammed Butt outlines the pressures on the council and the likelihood that cuts in public expenditure will continue up to 2020, and concludes:

The Council therefore has a twin challenge. First to reorder its priorities to further provide individuals and communities with support in the face of these problems and secondly to make more cuts in expenditure whilst avoiding what the Local Government Association term the ‘Graph of Doom’. This Graph of Doom concept is a projection that if both cuts to public expenditure and demand for services remain on the same trend then by 2020 Local Government will end up only delivering waste and high end social care services. 

To achieve these two goals we are therefore proposing a package of proposals to address some of the immediate issues facing people. At the same time we are beginning a fundamental review of all the Council’s services. We must divert people from high end provision by supporting as many people as possible to live independent, fulfilling lives. It is only by fundamentally recasting what we do that we can serve the needs of local people.

However, these aspiration have to be seen in what he deems the first priority:

The first priority must remain protecting the integrity of the Budget and making savings.

He says that the One Council programme will deliver £80m savings by the end of the spending review period  but because of the pressures Members need to consider further project areas. The 'Members' may need help with translating the next section of his report:

However, as fundamental change is the only way to achieve genuine savings, long 'lead in times' will be necessary to reflect the growing complexity of cross council, and complexity of cross-partnerships, change and early indications form Members of avenues to follow will be vital.

Butt says that the Executive has set for itself 'three key and critical policy outcomes' for the next three years:

1. To promote fairness
2, To strengthen our community and
3, To support growth in the local economy

The question is whether those can be maintained given the funding gap that has to be bridged and whether   a more radical strategy is needed to avoid the 'Graph of Doom',  including setting a 'needs based' budget and mobilising against the Coalition's attack on local government.

The public are unlikely to have much information on the detail and extent of Brent Council cuts until early 2013 now due to slippage in the timetable.

Confirmation of central government funding for local councils will not be known until mid-December and the London Mayor will submit his draft budget on December 17th. Consultation with 'resients, businesses, voluntary sector, partner agencies and trade unions' on the Brent budget propoals is scheduled to take place 'up to Januaruary'.  The Budget Overview and Scrutiny Committee  will discuss the evidence collected and the 1st interim report on January 15th and the General Purposes Committee will agree the Council Tax and Business Rate bases on January 22nd.

The detailed  budget proposals will not be discussed by the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee until February 5th and just a week later, on February 11th,  the Executive  will consider the final proposals, including fees and charges for 2013-14 and cuts in the housing budget as well as rent increases.

The timetable means that public  'consultation' will take place over a very short period and that over the busy Christmas period.

Never mind the polar bears, what will WE eat?

A meeting on the rapidly melting Arctic ice cap and implications for Brent residents will be taking place at the Pakistan Community Centre in Willesden Green on Wednesday 21^st November.

 

The purpose of the meeting is to brief councillors, policy-makers, trade unionists, and community leaders on the seriousness of the situation and its possible consequences for people in Brent. The meeting, ‘Never Mind the Polar Bears, What Will We Eat?’, is being organised by Brent Campaign against Climate Change and Brent Friends of the Earth.

 

The speakers will be: Phil Thornhill, National Co-ordinator of Campaign against Climate Change, who will review the latest scientific evidence of the depletion of Arctic ice and its possible effect on the world’s weather systems; and Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Campaigner in  Land Use, Food and Water Security from Friends of the Earth, who will talk about the vulnerability of the world’s food supply.  They will also answer questions and open a discussion on what further action we should be taking in Brent.  The meeting is being chaired by Tariq Dar, Chairman of the Pakistan Community Centre.

 

Recent reports show that 70% of Arctic sea ice has melted since 1980 [1] and that there will be no Arctic sea ice in the summer months by 2016. This is likely to have a serious impact on world weather patterns, affecting the price of food internationally and increasing the vulnerability of regions of the world already prone to droughts and floods. Some of these regions will be those in which members of the Brent community have family and friends.

 

Ken Montague, Secretary of the Brent Campaign against Climate Change says:

The melting of the Arctic is a wake-up call to all of us about the urgency of tackling climate change while we still can. This meeting will present the latest scientific information and discuss how it will affect us here in Brent and the people we may know in other parts of the world. We believe that the seriousness of the situation means that we have to assist Brent Council to develop a community response, both in terms of measures we can take locally, and by raising our concerns with our representatives in Parliament.

Lia Colacicco, Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, and member of Brent Climate Change Steering Group, says:

People may know the ice caps are melting, but believe that if it’s so serious then surely somebody else must be taking care of it. But Governments worldwide don’t think beyond the next election, so no one IS planning for the immense repercussions of drought, flooding and food shortages we face in future years. I hope that this meeting will galvanise Brent residents and councillors to put pressure on those in power.

 

It’s like the Butterfly Effect.  Melting ice affects the Gulf Stream which brings warmth to the UK - and we all saw how our Jet Stream got stuck this summer bringing weeks of rain.  The price of apples and pears has already increased due to the resulting shortage – my pear tree produced a tenth of its usual harvest.

The meeting will take place at 7.30pm on Wednesday 21^st November at the Pakistan Community Centre, Marley Walk, Station Parade, Willesden Green, NW2 4PU (just behind Willesden Green tube station).  This is a free event and all are welcome.