Brent TUC defends union representatives

Brent Trade Union Council (TUC) held a protest at Willesden Bus Garage yesterday in defence of Robert Chung, union representative, who is facing disciplinary action.

The protesters reported a mostly favourable reaction from bus drivers.

Stop them Blocking A Healthier Future: Give evidence to People's Inquiry into London's NHS

Guest blog from Sarah Cox

The People's Inquiry on London's NHS held its NW London session yesterday in Ealing. There was powerful and compelling testimony from many people, notably Anne Drinkell, who described from her immediate experience, backed up by research, the strains on those working in the community, their need for accessible comprehensive back up services in hospital for the increasingly complex needs of the patients and the inadequacy of the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals. She proclaimed her commitment to keeping people out of hospital wherever possible, but the resources are being cut, not expanded as they would need to be.

Gurinder Sandhu, a consultant in infectious diseases at Ealing Hospital spoke passionately about the increase in TB - Brent and Ealing have levels higher than many third world countries - the multiple problems caused by increases in homelessness and the number of patients living "below the radar" with whom Ealing Hospital has formed relationships.

Mary Daly, asked at the last minute to take Muhammed Butt's place, was absolutely excellent. Her experience as a health visitor informed her understanding of the problems we face and the inadequacy of the Out of Hospital care proposals without adequate resources and the dangers of fragmentation of our local health services especially as Brent CCG seems to be pursuing a policy of "macho privatisation" a phrase used by one of the panel members.

Participating in these inquiries is really worthwhile. There are more sessions to come and email evidence is also welcome. Please everyone add your experience and views. Unlike the mock Shaping a Healthier Future "consultation" they will be taken seriously. www.peoplesinquiry.org

Brent’s approach to consultation – has anything changed?

Acknowledgement: http://myhome.iolfree.ie/~lightbulb/Research.html

Four years ago, in the infancy of this blog, I published an article entitled 'Is consultation a con?'  LINK which suggested a series of possible definitions so that the purpose and limits of consultation was transparent. Since then we have had many 'consultations' in Brent and the problem remains as this 'Case Study' Guest Blog by Philip Grant as well as the earlier posting by 'Malinowski'  shows.

1. Introduction: In 2011 we witnessed a disastrously mishandled consultation process over Brent’s Libraries Transformation Project, when Council Officers treated the views expressed by local residents with contempt, yet still managed to get the Executive to rubber-stamp their plans. The repercussions of that episode still continue today. Brent Council has moved on, and now has enshrined in Article 10 of its Constitution the following commitments:

1.  The Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication.

2.  The Council recognises that meaningful participation can only take place:

• in an environment where people are better informed about local services;

• where community spirit is fostered so that people care enough to want to take part, and are encouraged to do so; and

• where council decisions can be seen to reflect the views and concerns of local residents.

That is very good, but has anyone told Council Officers about this? Let me share with you a genuine “Case Study”, which has happened during the past three weeks.

2. Case Study: I am one of those people who ‘care enough to want to take part’, and along with five other members from local history societies accepted the invitation to take part in a stakeholder consultation meeting at the Civic Centre to help develop a new Museum and Archives Strategy. It was chaired by Neil Davies (Strategy and Service Development) [“ND”], who told us that the draft strategy would be prepared in time to go out for consultation at “Brent Connects” in January 2014, with the Council deciding on the new strategy in the Spring. He had already received views from “internal stakeholders”, and our views would be among several inputs into the draft strategy by “external stakeholders”.

Although most of the meeting was positive, with plenty of participation and many sensible ideas put forward, it got off to a bad start. One of the first points raised by us was why a staff restructuring exercise was taking place now at the Museum and Archives, when surely the time to do this would be after the new Strategy had been consulted on and decided, which would still give plenty of time before the new facilities open at Willesden Green in Spring 2015. ND did not appear to know about the restructuring. Sue McKenzie (Head of Libraries, Arts and Heritage) [“SMc”] was also at the meeting, but she refused to discuss her staff restructuring plans, as these were ‘an internal matter’.

I had already heard a little of what the staff restructuring plans were, and emailed that evening (16 October) to Sue Harper (Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services) [“SH”] to express my concern about the consultation process being undermined. It appeared that SMc was trying to push through a restructuring by December 2013, based on her own view of what a new Museum and Archives Strategy should be, while the consultation process was actually in progress which should decide that strategy. I also explained that if the experienced existing staff lost their jobs, which seemed a likely result of SMc’s proposals, it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage Services.

I received a “reply” from Jenny Isaac (Operational Director, Neighbourhoods) [“JI”] on 18 October, which did not answer either of the points I had raised. Instead it explained that SMc couldn’t discuss the restructuring plans in public, because ‘the impact on our teams is something for Sue to manage carefully, sensitively and supportively with those individuals who are affected.’ (My reply to this point was: ‘I suggest that you visit RK and MBB in the cramped basement storeroom at George Furness House where they currently have to work, and ask them, face-to-face, whether the proposed restructuring which they have been faced with since 18 September has been managed 'carefully, sensitively and supportively.' – to the best of my knowledge, no such visit has yet been made.)

The rest of JI’s long email to me was a justification of the restructuring exercise, including several quotations from reports by national bodies, most of which I have later discovered was “copied and pasted” from a document written by SMc, topped off with the claim that: ‘the proposals have been discussed with The National Archive who are supportive of the proposals’. In my reply (19 October) I pointed out that the quotations merely gave good reasons why a review of Museum and Archives Strategy should be taking place, that consultation on this was taking place, and that ND had told us at our stakeholder meeting that the “discussions” she was putting forward as support for SMc’s restructuring proposals were actually one of the inputs into his consultation on the new strategy.

My reply to JI also restated, without any room for doubt, what were the two issues which needed to be resolved, that the restructuring should not be taking place now because it went against Brent’s commitments on consultation, and that if the restructuring did take place now it would seriously damage the delivery of Brent’s Heritage services. As before, her “reply” (23 October) ignored both of these points, again defending the staff restructuring and saying it was: ‘an internal matter, and Sue Mckenzie is fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures. The views of the affected staff will be carefully considered when the final decision on the future structure of the museum and archive is made.’ (We will return to those ‘proper HR processes’ later.)

JI’s email also said that: ‘The staff restructure will ensure flexibility to deliver the new museum and archive strategy’ (which turned out to be another “copy and paste” from SMc). My response (also 23 October) was:

‘How can you be sure, when that strategy is still not even in draft form? SMc has submitted her ideas to ND, as an internal stakeholder, but if his consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy is to have any credibility, she should not be implementing a staff restructuring in Museum and Archives, presumably based on her own view of the future staff needs of Museum and Archives, until after the Strategy has been properly decided. That is the key point of principle here, and that is why the Museum and Archives staff restructuring must be halted.’

I don’t know about you, but I thought that was a pretty convincing argument. Whether JI was convinced I will never know, because she did not attempt to counter it, replying on 24 October (please note the date):

‘The position is unchanged.  I reiterate, the new team will be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of the new strategy and ensure that the new museum and archive provides a service that is relevant to a wider group of our residents. You will be consulted on the museum and archive strategy as appropriate. The Council will not enter into further correspondence on the staff restructure.’

Now, I thought that on 16 October I had raised an important point with a Council Director which needed to be considered and resolved. In several exchanges of emails I had put that point, and the reasons supporting the view I was taking. In return, the Senior Council Officer I was dealing with side-stepped the key issue, did not try to resolve anything and then refused to discuss the matter further. What could I do? Well, I don’t give up if I feel I have an important and valid point, and ‘the Council is committed to involving the community through effective consultation and two-way communication’, so I went back to the top.

I wrote straight away, jointly to SH and Cllr. Roxanne Mashari [“RM”, who has been copied in on all of the correspondence, but has not contacted me at all], saying that the issue I had raised did need to be resolved, and drawing attention to JI’s references to a “new team”:

‘As SMc and JI are apparently already determined that there will be a "new team", what chance is there of any genuine consideration being given to the alternative proposals which I understand the existing Archives team (the Museum Curator having left last month) intend to put forward?

The implementation now of a staff restructuring by SMc raises similar concerns over how genuine the consultation exercise on the Museum and Archives Strategy will be. I am sure that ND will do a conscientious job in producing a new Strategy document, but behind his back SMc will already have put in place the "new team" that she has chosen. Until the new Strategy has been properly consulted on and decided, how can anyone really know whether the existing team, or at least some members of it, could deliver Brent's future Museum and Archives Strategy as well as, if not better than, any "new team"?’

Having asked some important questions, what answers did I get to them from SH on 28 October? None!

‘Thank you for your email of 24 October.  In recognition of the fact that you have a number of concerns outstanding, in line with our complaints procedure, I have asked the Council’s Complaints Manager, Phillip Mears, to undertake a first stage complaints investigation on my behalf.  Once Mr Mears has completed his investigation I will write to you with my decision.’

I responded that I had not actually made a complaint, and that although there might be some serious concerns which could be looked at to see whether they could have been handled better, the key point was to put any staff restructuring “on hold” until after the new Museum and Archives strategy had been properly consulted on and decided. I heard nothing further until SH replied on 4 November, saying:

‘As you know, I have asked Philip Mears to investigate your concerns as part of the Council’s complaint procedure and he will reply to you shortly. I am not prepared to get into further correspondence on the subject whilst this investigation is underway as in my experience it is likely to confuse the issue.’

So, yet again, no attempt by a Senior Council Officer to resolve an important point raised by a concerned participant in what was supposed to be a genuine Brent consultation exercise. By the time it was sent, SMc had issued her Final Decision Paper (“FDP”) on her staff restructuring proposals. It turned out that much of JI’s email to me of 18 October, and parts of some others, had been “copied and pasted” from the FDP, most of which had been written before SMc received the comments and alternative proposals from the staff she was supposedly consulting. And as for ‘the views of the affected staff will be carefully considered’, the thoughtful and sensible alternatives, which would ensure a good front-line service for the public and be delivered with a slightly larger cost saving, were rejected. The reason was because they did not meet the future service requirements (SMc’s own vision of what the new Strategy should be) set out in her consultation document. 

How a consultation which only allows you to give the answer that the person “consulting” with you wants can be treated as ‘fully complying with proper HR processes and procedures’, I fail to understand. It was a sham, and because of it, the existing team at Brent Archives will have their jobs “deleted”. They will be able to apply for “new posts” (several grades above the level they are currently employed at) which they are unlikely to get, especially with SMc also dismissing their request that she should not be on the panel interviewing them, because of her conflict of interests in the matter. 

What could I do about it? Well, I have made a detailed formal complaint to Brent’s Interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, against the actions of three Senior Brent Council Officers. She has refused to put the staff restructuring “on hold”, so even if my complaint is eventually upheld, it will probably be too late to save the jobs of the staff who will be key to delivering the sort of front-line Archives service that “external stakeholders” would like to see as part of the new Museum and Archives Strategy.

3. Conclusion. You may think I am naive (you would probably be right) but I believe that much more positive results can be achieved for our community by local people, Council Officers and Councillors working together. That is what I try to do in practice, but it needs to be seen to work, and at the moment it is not working.

My experience here is that Senior Officers have not learned the proper lessons from the way that they and, on their advice, Brent’s Executive mishandled the Libraries Transformation Project consultation exercise in 2011. Instead, the lesson they seem to have taken from it is that as they “got away with it” then, they can do the same again. For things to improve, Senior Officers need to set an example, and embrace the Council’s commitments on consultation. They should not, as in this case study, undermine or ignore proper consultation procedures. They should treat with respect, and seek to work together with, Councillors, staff and Brent’s citizens, in an open, transparent and reasonable manner. If they cannot, or will not, they should seek employment elsewhere.

If you have any comments or experiences to share, either for or against the views I have set out, please “post” them below, but no abuse, please. If any of the Officers I have mentioned wish to have a right of reply, I hope that Martin will allow it to them. A big “Thank You” to Martin for giving me the chance to write this “guest blog”, and thanks to you for reading it.

Philip Grant.

Postscript from Hitchhikers Guide to the Planet on Planning Consultations

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy 

Councils can waive Council Tax if people left without 'reasonable' amount to live on

As odium descends on Brent Council over its Council Tax summonses and a recent attempted eviction, Sarah Cox has circulated some useful advice from Tax Payers Against Poverty LINK

Councils can exercise discretion to waive Council Tax payments if people would be left without a 'reasonable' amount to live on - but Councils don't appear to tell the people affected that this is the case. Full details are on the website above but here are the main points:

The Council will not tell you:

1. That they have the discretion to write off the tax for vulnerable and impoverished people  under clause 10 (1) 13A (1) of the Local Government Finance Act 2012. It is necessary for the council tax benefit claimant to write a letter to the council setting out their financial circumstances, all debts, and all relevant information such  as health/disability. Payment of the bedroom tax, rent due to the overall benefit tax and the rent due to the housing benefit tax would be relevant.

2. That the bottom line is the income left after rent and council tax needed for food,  fuel, clothes, transport and other necessities; that has to be a reasonable amount if councils (and jobcentres) abide by the Wednesbury Principles as required by law and endorsed by coalition ministers.

3.That page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents, published by the Ministry of Justice in 2012,  sets out a procedure for bailiffs to return vulnerable cases from the door step to all creditors, including councils for council tax and courts for fines. A change of circumstances since the debt, fine or council tax arrears were incurred is another reason for applying page 9 procedure.

This should get Chalkhill residents on their bikes!

The site plan

The BMX track

The scooter track

The planning application for a family cycling facility at St David's Close (Chalkhill Sports Ground) has now been posted on the Brent Council website LINK and it looks well thought out and very exciting. A lot of thought has been put into making the facility both safe and challenging and the noisiest track is well away from the houses next to the railway track.

 The initial deadline for comments is November 20th 2013 and the planning officer is Matthew Harvey: matthew.harvey@brent.gov.uk

Only two comments so far appear on the website. One is a simple objection while the other states:

Support: I currently live in a neighbouring borough and would be prepared to cycle 3 miles here to use this facility. I have grown up riding BMX in East London and moved to North London recently I have seen the benefits first hand of what places like this can do for local kids and communities. I've seen kids from all kids of backgrounds become friends, avoid turning to crime and help stay healthy because they had somewhere to go and something to do on the weekends.

I hope there will be similar positive comments from local residents including children.

This is a summary of the facilities from the Planning Application:

Family Cycle Trail

The Family cycle trail will be a ‘Green Grade Trail’ based on the International Mountain Bicycling Association’s (IMBA) grading of routes/trails. The difficulty level of the proposed trail equates to ‘Leisure and Easy’ and will be built to IMBA Standards for Green Grade Trails. 

The Family Trail (Green Trail) will snake its way around the Sports field as indicated on the design. Boulder stones will be placed to add features to the trail and help create a natural segregation from riders and pedestrians. Best possible use will be made of existing land forms and features onsite. All aspects of the trail will be integrated into the exiting land forms as much as possible for example elevations and deviations of the existing parkland.

BMX Track

The proposal relates to the creation of a BMX Track facility to The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) and British Cycling standards. Further, a post installation inspection will be carried out before the facility is handed over to ensure it meets the standards and safety parameters set by British Cycling and ROSPA

The proposed design has been created to suit all abilities of riders from beginners to experts as all obstacles are to be 'rollable', meaning not so confident riders can roll over each obstacle and still carry sufficient speed for the next. The nature of the obstacles and angle of the berms will allow more experienced riders to carry further speed and negotiate the obstacles in a number of different ways. Each element of the track will be progressive and allow riders to increase their skill level during each visit.

The Start Hill has been positioned to be easily accessible from the entrance to the area. This helps to reduce conflict between riders as well as other users of the sport ground as the easiest way to the track

start it the most desired route. 

The position of the Start Hill also helps to reduce the possibility of riders crossing the track as the Start Hill is the area riders congregate and when positioned as close to the entrance as possible riders are magnetized towards the correct starting position before riding the track. The Track start slope is low to help control the speed of riders entering the first straight. This will give less skilled riders the confidence to try the track as they will not be entering th e obstacles at great speeds. The obstacles have also been designed low. This keeps the speed controlled by not allowing riders to gain lots of speed from long down slopes which high jumps would allow. 

Inexperienced riders can roll each obstacle safely whilst still carrying enough speed to negotiate the next. The track will also be of interest to more experienced riders as they can try to ride the track in different combinations and carry extra speed round the berms. 

Scooter Track

The Scooter Track will be placed at the end of the asphalted access path to the area to allow for ease of access by the users such as young children and families. 

These asphalted access paths will allow users of scooters and other small wheeled bikes ease of access to the Scooter track as they will be of a smooth finish.

The access path will cross over the start or return of the family cycle trail. this will be negotiated with the use of stone boulders to slow both riders on the family trail and users of the scooter track by means of a squeeze area. 

The Scooter Track itself will consist of small low obstacles linking from one to another. There will also be a low start hill to allow riders to gain sufficient speed to negotiate the obstacles along the Track. The entire Scooter Track will be finished in asphalt to allow a smooth finish for the small wheeled Scooters and Bikes. The smoother the finish the easier smaller wheels will be able to travel over the surface. 

Storage Container

The storage container will be supplied to provide a future cycling club valuable storage space for equipment such as bikes, helmets and other safety equipment.

Floodlighting is not proposed and the lack of this provision should minimise recreational noise during the hours of darkness.

Sabina Khan and Zaffar van Kalwala move ahead in the Brent Central race

Sabina Khan has overtaken Dawn Butler in the number of ward nominations for Brent Central tonight having been chosen by both Welsh Harp and Dudden Hill.  Zaffar van Kalwala got the male nomination in Dudden Hill and Dr Sundar Thava the Welsh Harp. Kalwala now has four nominations, equal to Dawn Butler, with Sabina Khan one ahead on five.

Patrick Vernon was a strong runner up in both Mapesbury and Dudden Hill.

Kingsley Abrams has been nominated by the GMB Central London Branch.

Tony McNulty and Sabina Khan were nominated by the Cooperative Party.

Ward Nominations Complete List
.

Ward	Female nomination	Male Nomination
Tokyngton	Dawn Butler	Zaffar Van Kalwala
Stonebridge	Butler	Kalwala
Harlesden	Butler	Kalwala
Willesden Green	Sabina Khan	Imran Ahmed
Kensal Green	Khan	Parmijit Dhanda
Dollis Hill	Butler	Liaquat Ali
Mapesbury	Khan	Mike Katz
Dudden Hill	Khan	Kalwala
Welsh Harp	Khan	Dr Sundar Thava

Cooperative Party nominates Khan and McNulty for Brent Central

Away from the ward nominations Labour Party affiliates also nominate their preferred candidates for the Brent Central parlimentary candidature.

The Cooperative Party has nominated Sabina Khan and Tony McNulty.

'Consultation': An Anthropologist Explains

Guest Post from 'Malinowski'

From today's Wembley and Willesden Observer

As Copland Community School begins its Academy 'Consultation', interested parties, or anyone with a passing interest in cultural relativism, might like to know what this 'consultation' business is all about, and in what ways it differs from  our everyday, common-sense understanding of what consultation might mean.

The first thing to remember is that, in certain advanced societies, 'consultation' is a word with a specific cultural meaning. Put simply, it describes a period of time which begins at a certain point and then ends some time later. The period in between these points is called a 'consultation period'. (Indeed, the ancients used to measure time and age in 'consultations' and would refer to an elder of the village as 'a wise man of four score consultations').

Current custom demands that the 'consultation' must not begin unless and until its subject's outcome has been decided; (and commonly,as in the case of the current Copland 'consultation',  not until the outcome has actually been announced and published to those affected by it). 

 The 'consultation' itself involves various traditional 'consultative' activities and behaviours which are of no more than ritual significance  but which are nevertheless strictly observed, especially by those who have previously decided or approved the outcome, (invariably those of higher status within the group's power hierarchy).

Those occupying lower positions in the  pecking order are also encouraged to take an active part (or 'participate') in these ritual behaviours as tradition has it that this gives them 'ownership'  of the pre-ordained outcome.

As 'ownership' of any kind (especially 'private') is a high-status concept in such groups' belief-systems, this can be seductive to the more suggestible members of the group and conformity is further reinforced by the fact that  to point out the fatuity of the 'consultation' is regarded as taboo within the community and can lead to the disapproval or opprobrium of the community elders and their more compliant subjects.

In societies which practise it, the 'consultation' phenomenon is most commonly observed during what is called the 'planning' period, (named thus because it occurs after all the plans have been made).  Members of the public who unexpectedly come upon a group engaged in a 'consultation exercise' ( so called because it involves the expenditure of a great deal of energy to no particular purpose )  are advised to remain at a respectful distance from the participants but can be confident that they are perfectly safe.

Despite the solemnity and sometimes alarming  vigour with which the 'consultation exercise' is apparently being performed, the moment it is over observers may rest assured that life will calmly carry on as if the whole process had never ever actually taken place.

Further advice for travellers likely to be visiting communities where 'consultations' are prevalent can be found at https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice.