Brent Labour Council should hang its head in shame as Stonebridge Adventure Playground closes

I visited Stonebridge Adventure Playground  yesterday for their last major children's event - an Easter Egg Hunt. Caught up in the excitement of the hunt children soon forgot about the imminent closure - indeed many children had thought that the playground was already closed on this the first day of the school Easter holiday.

The adults present were all too aware that this was the end of an era.  Salvageable equipment had been transported  from the playground building into safe storage. The outdoor play equipmentcannot be moved as the legs, embedded in concrete, would have to be cut off at ground level.

Brent Council served the playground a double whammy:  1) closure to allow Stonebridge Primary School to be expanded and housing built on the school's present annexe. The land sale will pay for the school expansion. 2) stop funding of the playground so even if the application to expand the school failed the playground would still not survive.

To add insult to injury the Coucil asked the playground workers to carry on working for nothing during the Easter and Summer holidays.

The consultation on the school expansion ends on Thursday March 2nd, two days after the playground funding stops. To comment go to LINK

The playground serves the children of Stonebridge and Harlesden, some of the most disadvantaged in Brent. The children in the new developments being built in the area will not only need school places but a safe, supervised place to play. The Council has deprived them and the present population of that.

Median income of Brent wards 2014

 Stonebridge ethnicity compared with Brent (2011 census)

Age and gender compared wit Brent (2011 census)

The 2011 census results showed that 32.1% of the Stonebridge population were under 18 compared with 22.6% of the whole borough.

The Stonebridge School Annexe. This will be demolished and the children moved into the expanded main school. The net increase in capacity of Stonebridge School as a whole will be incraesed by only 30 pupils. Houses will be built on the Annexe site.  Substantial investment has been made to make the Annexe suitable for educating children.

New housing is going up opposite Stonebridge School and the adventure playground, eventually making a continuous run of housing on both sides of the road.  The green space below and the trees are threatened by the new development. They originally provided screening from the busy main road for the school.

The empty interior of the playground building, soon to be bulldozed

Children left their signatures and messages on the piano as a farewell to the playground

On a personal note I'd like to pay tribute to Doug and Glynis Lee, the amazing playworkers and all those who fought so hard to keep Stonebridge Adventure Playground open. You are an example to all who care about their community.

 

Bob Blackman's record on environmental issues under scrutiny

Bob Blackman, former MP for Harrow East (he is now just a candidate) had his record put under scrutiny publicly last week  near St Anne's Shopping Centre, Harrow on the Hill, when a constituent erected a board displaying his responses to her letters on various environmental issues as well as the Robin Hood tax and TTIP.

It was a novel way to inform voters of his complacency in the face of residents' concerns.

Bob Blackman is a former leader of Brent Conservatives.

Ibrahim Taguri confirms he will not stand as an Independent in Brent Central

As Brent Green Party was meeting across the road, the signage at Ibrahim Taguri's temporary campaign office in Walm Lane was being taken down last night. Earlier Ibrahim had confirmed to me that he would not be standing as an Independent in the General Election. He had anticipated a quick resolution of the allegations about donations made in the Daily Telegraph but this has not happened.

Lauren Keith was last week selected as the Liberal Democrat candidiate for Brent Central.

On March 26th the Electoral Commission made the following statement:

The Electoral Commission has today (26 March 2015) provided an update on its consideration of two separate allegations regarding donations to the Liberal Democrat Party.

Daily Telegraph allegations

Following the allegations that appeared recently on The Telegraph online (11 March) and subsequently in the newspaper regarding Ibrahim Taguri and donations to the Liberal Democrats, the Electoral Commission requested information from the newspaper, the party and Mr Taguri to help it establish the facts in the case.

Based on the information that the Commission has seen, one alleged offence centres on the potential evasion of restrictions on donations in contravention of section 61 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Offences under this part of PPERA are ultimately a criminal matter and fall outside of the Commission’s civil sanctioning powers.

The Electoral Commission has therefore passed the information that it has received to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The MPS have confirmed to the Commission that they are also aware of the allegations and that they are considering them.

Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ 

Following the allegations that appeared as part of Channel 4’s Dispatches programme (23 March), the Electoral Commission requested further information from the programme to help it establish the facts in the case.

Based on the information that the Commission has seen, the alleged offence in this case centres on the potential evasion of restrictions on donations in contravention of section 61 of PPERA and is ultimately a criminal matter. As a result, the Commission has also passed the information that it has received to MPS who are aware of the allegations and are considering them.

Donations received in the course of both cases

In both of these cases, the Liberal Democrat Party received a number of donations.

One donation in the Telegraph case, a cheque for £7,650 was delivered to the party. However, it had not been banked and the funds had not cleared and as a result no offence was committed under the donation rules set out in PPERA.

The other donations included one of £1,450 made by the undercover reporter in the Telegraph case that was received and accepted by the party; and another of £10,000 received from the ‘step father’ of the undercover donor in the Dispatches case, Mr Paul Wilmott. The Commission is in contact with the Liberal Democrats about the actual source of these donations and will provide a separate statement about this matter once these further facts have been established.

Next steps

Any decisions about what further steps to take at this stage in relation to potential evasion of restrictions on donations in either case rest with the Metropolitan Police Service.

Should further facts emerge in relation to The Telegraph allegations or Channel 4’s Dispatches, which could lead the Electoral Commission to consider any other potential breaches of PPERA, the Commission will do so in line with its enforcement policy.

TTIP: the threat to local authorities and public services

As the perils of TTIP are still not widely known and only a few organisations. including the Barnet Alliance and the Green Party seem to be ringing the alarm bells, I am reposting this long piece first published on the Barnet Alliance website LINK.

The EU and the US have been negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement since July 2013. The consequences of this treaty could have a profound effect on EU member states at regional and local levels.TTIP would affect many sectors which are the responsibilities of local and regional authorities.

 The broad scope and myriad responsibilities of German Federal States, regional governments and local authorities across the EU would have justified involving them in the decision-making process as stakeholders. However, this has not happened. Representatives of regional and local governments as well as the public are puzzling over the content, the scope and the possible consequences of this treaty. It is therefore the aim of this short briefing to shine a light on possible consequences of this treaty for local and regional government. However, as negotiations are still ongoing, and owing to the restricted access to documentation, we can only present a rough estimation as to what TTIP will entail.

TTIP will have a profound effect on many areas under the remit of regional and local authorities and is examined in more detail here under in order to allow for a realistic assessment of risks. The source for this analysis are a series of leaked documents such as the text of the negotiating mandate of the EU Commission and drafts texts of various chapters and appendices.

As TTIP negotiations cover a very broad spectrum of topics, only those which are of relevance to local and regional authorities are considered for this briefing:

They include the planned Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) of arbitration, and issues relating to the status of public services, grants, subsidies and public tendering.

The Effects of TTIP on Local and Regional Governments.

by Thomas Fritz

Translation by Phil Fletcher

Arbitration tribunals: Local authorities and international courts.

When the Lisbon Treaty came into force in 2009, the European Commission was given the exclusive authority over direct foreign investments. This allows it to include into trade agreements far reaching provisions for investor protection, provisions which had already been included in a multitude of bilateral treaties. The mandate to negotiate on TTIP, which the European Council granted the European Commission, also provides for investor protection including ISDS, albeit on condition of an overall “satisfactory” result of the negotiations for the EU.

Notes from the Mansfield Enquiry

Guest blog by Peter Latham

On Saturday 28 March 2015 I went to Hounslow Civic Centre for the morning half of the NW London local authorities' Mansfield enquiry hearings into the impact of the NW London NHS 'Shaping a Healthier Future' project on healthcare for patients in NW London.

 

The main new thing I learnt was that the enquiry secretary Peter Smith told me that all the Clinical Commissioning Group and hospital trust NHS witnesses have declined to attend to give evidence until after all the 5 volumes of written evidence have been disclosed by the enquiry online next week. So any Clinical Commissioning Group or Healthcare Trust witnesses will be only be cross-examined at Brent Civic Centre on 9 May - after the General Election. 
Counsel to the enquiry is the barrister Katy Rensten instructed by a solicitors Birnberg Pierce.  She asked very easy leading questions for all witnesses critical of the Shaping a Healthier Future project.  There was no-one to cross-examine witnesses critical of the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' project.
The chairman of the enquiry Michael Mansfield QC asked a few well focused questions to each witness.   The other panel members are a retired Ealing GP Dr Stephen Hirst MBBS London 1974, and Dr John Lister (non-medical PhD) who is is a journalist academic with strong links to the National Union of Journalists and prominent in the pressure group 'Save Our NHS'.
It was clear from the panel questions that they are very interested in the same topics that the Brent CCG locality Patient Participation Group chairs criticise:

• weaknesses of the evidence for the original case for the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' project; 
• the failure to put in place the proposed community services to take the strain before the acute A/E departments were closed on 10.9.14;
• the lack of clarity for the public as to the demarcation between Urgent Care Centres and acute A/E;
•  the flimsy basis for the attempted implementation of the Shaping a Healthier Future projects with insufficient tendering procedure know-how.

It became clear to me that the panel and even some of the professional witnesses are not fully familiar with the full range of new NHS structures e.g. no-one was able to say where the funding for the Better Care Fund comes from - although it was thought that it involves no new money.  There appeared to be ignorance as to how limited the first tranche of implementation of Whole Systems Integrated Care is to be: in Brent just over 65s with at least one long term condition.

It became clear to me that some of the witnesses are failing to distinguish 2 quite separate issues: the political controversy over privatisation of NHS services, and the separate clinical and financial efficiency issue as to the merits of transferring more NHS out-patient services from the secondary hospitals into a community primary care setting.  This was particularly true of Professor Allyson Pollock of Queen Mary College who made a  very emotive politicised statement about destruction of the NHS by importing US style commercial privatisation.

The witness Hounslow Councillor Melvin Collins chair of NW London Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) was very critical of the NW London and CCGs long-standing secretiveness towards them with failure to provide requested information which he said made their work ineffective e.g. at a meeting on about 23 March Dr Mark Spencer had made it clear they would only get the business case for Whole Systems Integrated Care after the general election.

The 2 witnesses from Hounslow Council, their leader Steve Curran and cabinet member for Health and Adult Social Care Lily Bath, emphasised the shortcomings of their local CCG over SaHF and WSIC, but understandably had no criticisms of the local authority component of local health and social care other than emphasising their insufficient funding.

Consultant in Emergency Medicine Dr Julian Redhead, Chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine London Regional Board and with Imperial College and St Marys emergency trauma unit emphasised the shortage of appropriately qualified and experienced A/E staff as driving the need for centralisation of acute A/E services, and the need for a sufficient patient base to support specialist skills.  He gave rather vague oral evidence about the NHSE/Monitor 2009 patient base A/E funding cap with 30% funding disincentive for excess patients, and suggested that the whole way in which we pay for emergency medicine needs to be reformed: without making any specific suggestion in his oral evidence.

Medical practitioner Professor Allyson Pollock emphasised the transformation resulting from the repeal of sections 1 and 3 of the NHS Act 2006 by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 with the result that the Secretary for State no longer has a statutory duty to 'provide' health care  for the people of England, but only a duty to 'promote' such healthcare.  The duty transferred to the NHS Commissioning Board and local CCGs is only to meet the reasonable requirements of their population.  Public health has been carved out of CCGs and transferred to local authorities.  GP practices no longer have a specific territory.  She contended that we no longer have a National Health Service.  The present government are keen on the prime provider model which encourages sub-contracting so that we are importing US solutions and US problems.  Services are already falling away when specific services are not not specifically includedin contracts.  We are moving to the over-treatment and under-treatment of the over-expensive commercial insurance company US model whose algorithms focus on profitable premium fixing with no local accountability or local link.   She strongly proposed abolishing Foundation Trusts and the NHS internal market.  

The chairman of the enquiry Michael Mansfield QC asked Professor Pollock whether she had researched the vested interests of members of the House of Commons and House of Lords who had spoken in favour of the model of the 2012 Act.  She said that she had not researched this but that many did have such vested interests e.g. Alan Milburn.  She said that the last leader of the NHS had described it as being in 'managed decline'.

Peter Latham,  Chairman Willesden Patient Participation Group.

Now Cricklewood Llbrary land and building to be sold off

After the controversy over the attempted sale of Kensal Rise Library, Cricklewood Library is now up for sale.  As the library is an  asset of community value there is now a period in which community interest groups can lodge notice that they are potential bidders

Brent Advocacy Concerns is looking for new trustees

                                    

Are looking for New Trustees

   BAC has been supporting Disabled People in Brent since 1988 and are looking for trustees who can help take us forward in these challenging times.

  We are seeking people who:

·      Feel they can support the aims and objectives of the organisation and the social model of disability.

·      Have a knowledge of disability issues either by personal experience or by close association with disabled people (75% of our trustees should define as disabled)

·      Are able to commit to 6 meetings a year at a mutually agreed time.

·      Feel a connection to our work and will spread the word

·      Would like to help to develop the organisation

·      Could be pro-active in helping to raise funding, sponsorship etc.

·      Could support the organisation with any skills they may have e.g. experience of disability, organising, IT, website design, management or business skills, legal knowledge, accounting, social media etc.

·      Live in the GLA area

We can offer:

·      Disability, equality awareness training

·      Management Committee training and out of pocket expenses

·      The chance to make a difference for disabled people in Brent and surrounding areas.

·      An opportunity to improve skills.

If you, or anyone you know, is interested in joining us please contact John Healy by 3^rd April 2015.

020 8459 1493

bacadvocacy@outlook.com     or       innit67@icloud.co

Brent Advocacy Concerns, Willesden Centre for Health and Care, Robson Avenue, London NW10 3RY. Registered Charity Number 1001369

Emperor's New Clothes Rap - Cassetteboy