When is a Brent consultation NOT a consultation?

2014-15 Budget a cut too far for at least one Brighton Green councillor

On Sunday I wrote about how difficult it was becoming for councils, of whatever political complexion, to keep to their promise to protect the most vulnerable in the face of sweeping Coalition funding cuts.

Coincidentally a Brighton People's Assembly sponsored Community Conference  was being held in Brighton home of the minority Green adminstration. Their 2014-15 budget is based on a £22.5m cut.

Councillor Ben Duncan who represents Queens Park ward, told the meeting that he woudl reject the proposed budget and would urge other Green and Labour councillors to join him. Duncan praised the fair and environmental principles which his colleagues had used when setting the budget, but went on:

We’re already seeing the impact of these cuts locally and it’s only going to get worse until local authorities say enough is enough and we’re not going to accept this.

We need to start that movement in Brighton and Hove as people elected the Greens on an anti-cuts platform.

 It is expected that Cllr Duncan will be joined by other Green councillors but the overall picture of the distribution of forces is still unclear.

Brighton People's Assembly LINK on their website outline the position:

Brighton & Hove City Council is facing a further £23 million reduction in its budget for 2014-15. 

The initial proposals for the budget have now been published on the council's website.
The proposed budget includes cuts to many vital local services, including:

• Residential care, home care and employment support for adults with learning disabilities
• Day centres for older people
• Social workers for children who need support
• The homelessness prevention service

Here's a longer list we have put together.

Brighton People's Assembly called a Community Conference on December 1st, bringing together councillors, council workers and local citizens, to discuss ways in which we can campaign for more funding and against these damaging budget cuts.

The meeting heard from local residents who depend on some of the services facing cuts.
For example, 800 local residents with learning disabilities receive support from the council to help them find employment. This is essential to help people fill in complicated forms and negotiate suitable job placements with employers. There is already a long waiting list for this support, but the budget proposals say the funding for the service will be cut by £100,000 - 45% of the total funding.

 Last night Green Left, of which I am a member, issued the following statement:

Green Left  supports both Ben Duncan and Alex Phillips who have said they'll vote against Tory cuts, and any other Green councillors considering doing so.

Council Tax Support: 3 days to respond to Brent's 'hidden' consultation

I wrote a little while ago about the hidden away Brent Council consultation on Council Tax support in which the council indicates it wants to continue the present scheme despite the furore over vulnerable residents unable to pay  receiving summonses to Willesden Magistrates Court and incurring extra court charges as a result.

An official complaint is being lodged on the grounds that the consultation has not been well puiblicised (not even to the Citizen's Panel), that it is on-line only making it less accessible to those who it affects because they are less likely to have access to a computer at home, and the very short consultation period. The consultation ends on Friday December 6th.

As one activist said: 'It is almost as if Brent Council doesn't want anyone to respond.'

You can access the consultation here LINK

Meanwhile Zacchaeus 2000 Trust (ZK2 ) LINK has made a response to the consultation.  ZK2000 started as a Christian organisation campaigning against the poll tax.It is s a London-based charity addressing poverty issues caused by unfairness in the law, legal and benefits system.

ZK2000 blogged:

As we have explained previously Z2K is totally opposed to the abolition of Council Tax Benefit and the government’s 10% funding cut, but we also think that local authorities that have tried to make up this funding shortfall by introducing a minimum payment are simply heaping further misery on their poorest residents.

In Brent the minimum payment has led to over 3,500 residents who formerly paid no council tax at all being taken to court with threat of almost £100 in legal fees being added to their debt. In our experience these people aren’t refusing to pay but simply can’t. We believe this just the beginning and expect that many more will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budgets unmanageable.

Here is their submission to the Council's consultation questions:
 

1. With reference to the 6 key principles listed above, please indicate how important these are to you? (Please rank each area according to importance: 1 being most important and 6 being least important)

Please click the options below in order of preference.

 Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

 Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected” (from the minimum contribution)

 Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

 Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

 Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

We will rank Principle 2 as number 1 and leave the rest blank.

2. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing “No Change” in its CTS scheme for 2014-15, except for including an additional group to be classed as vulnerable (see question 3)?

Z2K strongly objects to Brent’s proposal for maintaining its current CTS scheme. We believe, and our experience supporting Brent resident’s shows, that the minimum payment required by the scheme is pushing some of Brent’s most deprived resident’s further into poverty.

Benefits are supposedly calculated on the basis of providing the minimum necessary to live on, yet they fall far short of Minimum Income Standards (the amount required for a minimum acceptable living standard, for more information see http://www.jrf.org.uk/topic/mis). For a single person over the age of 25 the £71.70 weekly Job Seekers Allowance is only 38% of their minimum income standard and for a couple with two children their benefits only provide 58% of what is required for an acceptable standard of living.

This already insufficient income level is being further eroded by the government’s programme of welfare reform. In Brent 1,688 residents have had their housing benefit reduced by the ‘Bedroom Tax’ while 1,177 claimants have been hit by the Benefit Cap. Overall Brent is the local authority worst affected by welfare reform in London and research by Sheffield Hallam University has shown the cuts will result in residents losing £150m.

On top of this councillors have decided to introduce a minimum council tax payment that is amongst the highest in London, only Harrow is charging more (22.5%) and three other boroughs are charging the same amount (Ealing, Hillingdon & Newham). For the vast majority of CTS claimants this minimum payment has to come out of benefits which are already insufficient to provide for the basics of life, and in many cases have already been reduced by other welfare reforms. This means that just under 25,000 Brent residents have been placed in the impossible situation of trying to cut down their food, utility bills or other house essential costs in order to pay their council tax.

Unsurprisingly many have been unable to do so, resulting in almost 3,500 Brent residents being issued with court summons for non-payment of council tax so far this year. Our experience providing advice to some of those summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court on 5^th November and others over the summer demonstrated they are not ‘refusing to pay, regardless of support offered’, as the authority has previously claimed. We found a number of very vulnerable individuals and families who simply couldn’t pay, several of whom were in a state of serious anxiety and visibly distressed by the threat of legal action.

In our opinion these 3,500 summonses are just the beginning. We expect that many of those who have hitherto been managing to meet the minimum payment will start to fall into arrears as rising energy and food prices make their budges unmanageable, particularly as utility bills increase  with the onset of winter and the need to heat their homes. We are also concerned that those claimants who have previously been summonsed will not manage to pay off their arrears before the end of the financial year, creating the potential for a cycle of debt when they receive their 2014/15 bills.

As such we question the councils assumed collection rate of 80% of the minimum payment, upon which rests the supposed financial neutrality of the scheme. Given that the 80% target was not based on proper modelling and is effectively a guess, as well as the failure to take into account the costs of enforcement to the council, we question the financial viability of the minimum payment in making up the cut government funding.

Indeed any assessment of whether the proposal to maintain the current system for 2014/15 is correct should be undertaken on the basis of the fullest possible information. It is important the council takes into account the experience of the first year using evidence on arrears rates, cost of collection and impacts such as any increase in homelessness. Without providing this information the authority has prevented Brent residents from making an informed decision in their consultation responses. We can only hope that such evidence is provided to councillors in a thorough going impact assessment of the 2013/14 scheme before they make the decision for next year.    

Ultimately although we understand that financial pressure of the 10% funding cut has placed Brent in a difficult situation, we still believe it is possible to find a way not to pass this cut on to your poorest residents. As we have pointed out previously, six London authorities have maintained 100% council tax benefit while a further four have made changes to their scheme but have not implemented a minimum payment. 

We note that not all the boroughs that have chosen to retain 100% benefit are ‘affluent’ as is sometimes claimed by local councillors. Tower Hamlets for example is the 3^rd most deprived local authority in the country and has a similar number of CTB claimants to Brent, yet councillors there have chosen not to pass the cut onto their residents and found the money elsewhere.

In light of this we call for Brent to abolish the minimum payment and reinstate 100% council tax support, as well as joining the campaign against this iniquitous policy.

3. To what extent do you agree or disagree about Brent proposing to protect customers on Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit by classing these customers as being a vulnerable group in its CTS scheme for 2014-15?

While we believe that only the abolition of the minimum payment will create a fair and just Council Tax Support scheme we welcome any expansion of the exemptions to the minimum payment. In this regard, we agree with the authority’s proposal to class Lower Rate Incapacity Benefit and Higher Rate Incapacity Benefit claimant’s as a vulnerable group and thereby exempt them from the minimum payment from 2014-15 onwards.

However we note that in response to our highlighting the issue of Incapacity Benefit in regards to a client of ours the council agreed to apply the exemption to their 2013/14 account and waive their summons costs. We believe it would be unfair to not apply the same decision to other Brent taxpayers in the same situation as our client, whether they have been hitherto meeting the payments or struggled to do so and received a court summons and incurred additional costs. 

4. With reference to Principle 2 set out above, please give details of any other groups that you believe should be protected apart from those already proposed and give reasons why.

It is our belief that any individual or family that is forced to rely on state benefits is by definition vulnerable, particularly in a financial sense, and should therefore be exempt from paying council tax. That is why we argue for the abolition of the minimum payment. However if the council continues to refuse to do so, there are a number of particular vulnerable groups that could and should be protected.  

First among these are Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants. We note that Brent has previously stated that it is not necessary to exempt ESA claimants as disabled people are already covered under the DLA and disability premium exemptions.  However, this fails to take account of the fact that not all ESA claimants also claim DLA. 

Indeed the council has already recognised the need to exempt those in receipt of Incapacity Benefit meaning it would be inconsistent not to extend this exemption to ESA claimants. This is because Incapacity Benefit is in the process of being abolished and replaced by ESA. There are no new claims for Incapacity Benefit allowed and claimants are gradually being migrated to ESA. This means that if an Incapacity Benefit claimant is migrated to ESA and doesn’t also receive DLA or a disability premium they will then lose their exemption to the minimum payment, although their circumstances will have otherwise remained unchanged. Such a situation is surely inconsistent with the principle of exempting those on Incapacity Benefit and should be remedied immediately.

'HANDS OFF COPLAND!' strikers tell Ark Academy

The demonstration outside Ark Academy, Wembley

Copland Community High School in Wembley was closed today as teachers went on strike against a proposed take over by Ark Academy. Following an inspection visit by Ofsted the school governing body was sacked by Brent Council and an Interim Excutive Board imposed in its place. The IEB is negotiating a take over by Ark Academy and the despite consultation not being completed, a letter has been sent to parents, via pupils, informing them that Delia Smith, Principal of Wembley Ark Academy would head up both schools.

Brent Labour councillor defects to Lib Dems

Welsh Harp Labour  councillor Dhiraj Kataria  has defected to the Lib Dems citing his problems with top down leadership in the Council, library closures and cuts in street cleaning. 

This weekend Lib Dem councillor Reverend Clues resigned after two years spent in Brighton away from his Brent responsibilities. There will be no by-election because of the closeness of the 2014 local elections.

The Liberal Democrats will tomorrow announce their short list for Brent Central.

Swings and roundabouts.

Copland on strike again tomorrow against Ark take over

Staff at Copland Community School in Wembley will tomorrow  hold their third day of strike action against an attempt by Michael Gove and an imposed Interim Executive Board (IEB) to force the school to become an academy. Despite Cllr Michael Pavey, Lead member for Education in Brent, saying 'it is not a done deal' so far there had been no other option but ARK.

Staff will hold a rally outside The Torch pub at 10am  in Bridge Rd, Wembley against ARK forcibly taking over their school.

Hank Roberts, ATL Secretary and Immediate Past President said:

Stanley Fink, a leading ARK trustee, is the National Treasurer of the Conservative party and a friend of Michael Gove. He supports Gove's and the Conservatives policy, as revealed in the Independent, of handing over state schools to be run for profit. They're not in it for charitable giving. If they want to give Copland money we'd welcome it. Long term they're for taking money out of the system to add to the many millions they already have.

Tom Stone, NASUWT Acting Secretary said:

If Brent would only go and get the money the ex headteacher spirited away, the whole scenario of becoming an academy would disappear and Copland school would be a flourishing and effective school.

Lesley Gouldbourne, Joint NUT Secretary said,:

A recent leadership review of Copland carried out in October 2013 showed many improvements in teaching and learning and more robust financial management. Give the school time to continue this good work.

Can Brent provide for vulnerable young people amidst the cuts?

Local councils, faced with savage Coalition cuts to their funding, have often promised to make sure that the most vulnerable residents are protected. This is becoming more and more difficult, whatever the political complexion of the council. Alongside this councils are reducing the range of services to the core services required by statute. I have argued before on Wembley Matters that this may mean that services which are very beneficial to residents, and based on the council's recognition of a local need, may end up being cut: non-statutory doesn't mean not valuable or not needed. In addition, out-sourcing of some statutory services, muddies the water in terms of direct democratic accountability.

The December 9th Executive will be making decisions on a number of items that will have repercussion for services to the vulnerable.

They will be making a decision on procuring an Advocacy service for the following safeguarding 'clients'  to ensure they are safe from abuse:

• older people with physical disabilities
• young people (14-25 years old) with physical disabilities
• adults with mental health needs
• adults with learning disabilities

I am concerned that  'price' makes up 60% of the evaluation strategy for this procurement.

Another item is a change of provider for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.  They propose to decommission services currently provided by Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust.  In a key passage they state:

Information has been sought from other boroughs to determine what they commission. This work makes it very clear that while some boroughs do commission elements of training and systemic or early help provision, they do not fund direct therapeutic interventions. The proposed new provision,detailed in section 5 below, is therefore in line with that provided by other Local Authorities.

I hope the Executive will investigate that a little more. Rather than reduce services to match those of other boroughs, shouldn't Brent assess the value of direct therapeutic interventions?  I certainly found those useful for pupils and their families when I wa a headteacher and such interventions may save money in the long run. Officers argue that it is not possible to continue expenditure at current levels without jeopardising other services.

The proposals would reduce expenditure on children with disabilities by £50,000 to £146,000 and Looked After Children by £230,000 to £107,000.

Officers state:

The proposed change in the service could lead to an increase in support required through Care at Home and Direct Payments, and there is also the potential for some of these children/young people to become LAC. However, such pressures will be contained as the current service is supplementing a service already commissioned by the CCG and existing users will be able to access support from the CCG.

Clearly the first statement needs some discussion in terms of its implications for the individuals concerned. There is a possibility that too much responsibility is being shifted to the relatively untested CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group).

The report admits that there may be longer waiting time for Looked After Children requiring appointments but suggests that this will be dealt with by a requirement for the service to prioritise this group of young people. When I was familiar with this service several years ago waiting time was already a problem so I am sceptical that a notional prioritisation will address the problem.

More worrying also is a statement in the Equalities Impact Assessment that consideration had been given to consulting with users but that this was felt 'not to be in their interests to do so as it it would cause unnecessary anxiety'. The Assessment says it is intended to get views on the new service through the Care in Action forum for adolescents but it is not clear whether this will be before or after the changes are implemented.

A report on Higher Needs Student Eligibility is also tabled for November 9th.  This refers to educational provision for young people between 16 and 25 with a learning difficulty and/or disability. Arrangements have changed through new legislation and the local authority has to allocate appropriate provision:

The report states:

Council therefore needs to have processes in place to support this change and ensure that the allocated budget is not exceeded.

Funds allocated are about £18,000 per head for an estimated 140 people  next year.

The council will need to carry out a Learning Disability Assessment on young people who:

 Will be leaving school aged 16-19 and

• Is going on to further education, higher education or training and
• Is likely to need additional learning support to access education or training opportunities
• New children arriving from abroad who do not have a statement and have a learning difficulty or disability
• Children in mainstream schools that are supported by school action and school action plus support

Talks will be take place with further education colleges and other providers about provision whcih will enable 'young people with disabilities to live active, independent and fulfilling lives in the community.'

It will be important  to monitor the progress of young people and the quality of provision to see if fulfils these aims.

Did you celebrate 'Buy Nothing Day' and resist consumerist pressures?

As commercial companies tried yesterday to foist 'Black Friday on us, an American import supposed to mark the beginning of pre-Christmas consumption, Ad Buster publicised their Buy Nothing Day which took place today. LINK

They stress that the day isn't anti-shopping  as such or anti small shops but about creating awareness about the effect of consumption on the environment and its basic inequality.

This is how they explain the Day:

It's time to lock up your wallets and purses, cut up your credit cards and dump the love of your life - shopping.

Saturday November 30th 2013 is Buy Nothing Day (UK). It's a day where you challenge yourself, your family and friends to switch off from shopping and tune into life. The rules are simple, for 24 hours you will detox from shopping and anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending!

Everything we buy has an impact on the environment, Buy Nothing Day highlights the environmental and ethical consequences of consumerism. The developed countries - only 20% of the world population are consuming over 80% of the earth's natural resources, causing a disproportionate level of environmental damage, and an unfair distribution of wealth.

Of course, Buy Nothing Day isn't about changing your lifestyle for just one day - we want it to be a lasting relationship with you consumer conscience - maybe a life changing experience? We want people to make a commitment to consuming less, recycling more and challenging companies to clean up and be fair. The supermarket or shopping mall might offer great choice, but this shouldn't be at the cost of the environment or developing countries

I wonder if we should celebrate this at the Wembley's London  Designer Outlet next year?