Charities win right to challenge legal aid cuts to prisonsers

-->

Two charities have today (Tuesday 28 July) won the right to challenge legal aid cuts for prisoners after the Court of Appeal ruled there was a risk that the system could be unfair and unlawful.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) have been inundated with requests for help from children and prisoners since the cuts were introduced in December 2013.
The cuts have coincided with an unprecedented deterioration of safety standards in English and Welsh prisons and a rise in suicides, compounded by staff shortages.

A challenge by the Howard League and PAS was blocked by the High Court in March 2014 – but that decision was today overturned by Court of Appeal judges Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lady Justice Sharp.

The Court of Appeal’s decision means that the case can now proceed to a full trial. 

The charities argued in court that there were seven key areas of work cut from the ambit of legal aid that carry an unacceptable risk of unfairness. These included:

·         cases where prisoners appear before the Parole Board about their suitability for a move to open prison (but not release);

·         cases about pregnant prisoners being allocated to mother and baby units;

·         segregation;

·         access to offending behaviour work;

·         having a suitable home to go to on release from prison.

 
Unlike other cuts to legal aid, where a safety net was introduced to allow people to apply for legal aid in exceptional circumstances, the cuts for prisoners were absolute: there is no lifeline for even the most vulnerable or incapacitated prisoner to apply for legal aid for prison law matters.

In its detailed decision, the Court of Appeal recognises the risk of systemic unfairness as a result of the legal aid cuts to prison law. Lord Justice Leveson concludes: “The question of inherent unfairness concerns not simply the structure of the system which may be capable of operating fairly, but whether there are mechanisms in place to accommodate the arguably higher risk of unfair decisions for those with mental health, learning or other difficulties which effectively deprive them of the ability effectively to participate in, at least, some of the decisions to which [the applicants’ counsel] Ms Kaufmann refers.”

Lord Justice Leveson adds in the judgment that the Howard League and PAS are “pre-eminent in this field” and have “the very highest reputations”. 

In the year following the cuts, calls to the Howard League’s advice line increased by 45 per cent. The legal team, which provides the only dedicated legal service for children and young people in prison in the country, is overwhelmed with requests from young people with nowhere else to turn.

Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) represents adults (over-21s) and receives thousands of letters and calls each year. The charity simply does not have the physical or financial resources to deal with the large amount of requests that it now receives for pro bono assistance and representation.

The first key point of the case argues that the removal of legal aid for a small number of important Parole Board cases is unlawful. These cases affect prisoners on life sentences and imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences who can only progress to open conditions if the Parole Board advises that it would be safe for them to do so. This is important because, once in open conditions, prisoners can apply to work and receive education in the community. This step is key for prisoners’ rehabilitation and public safety. Making prisoners go through this stage without legal advice and representation is counter-productive and increases the risk to the public.

The second argument concerns the removal of legal aid for prisoners facing particular difficulties such as mothers threatened with separation from their babies, children and disabled prisoners who need a support package so they can be released safely, and mentally ill prisoners held in isolation. Managing people through long prison sentences is a skilful business which needs to be handled with extreme care so that they can resettle safely into the community.

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We welcome today’s decision, which offers hope to children and young people in prison.

“The Howard League’s legal team has represented many hundreds of children in prison and we want them to thrive inside and on release. Legal aid gets them the best help to achieve that.”

Deborah Russo, Joint Managing Solicitor at the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said: “We are delighted with the outcome of today’s hearing. The legal aid cuts to prison law have resulted in prisoners’ access to justice being severely curtailed with the consequence of further isolating an already very marginalised sector of our society.

“We therefore welcome today’s judgment, which now allows for a full hearing of the case and are thrilled to be now given the opportunity to put forward our case for legal aid for the most deprived and disadvantaged of prisoners.”

Brent Cabinet under pressure on three fronts

In the absence of Muhammed Butt, Cllr Michael Pavey presided over yesterday's Cabinet meeting with all the jaunty aplomb of the driver of the Dundee bound express as he approached the Bridge of Tay on 'the last Sabbath day of 1879, which will be remember'd for a very long time.'

The Cabinet was marked by a bitter exchange over the Preston Community Library,  an accusation that an officer's report had turned negative comments into positives in the Tudor Gardens consultation, and a warning that in the Bridge Park development Brent Council was dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

Even if Pavey was breezily unaware of what was happening the Brent Communications Team certainly were. No sooner had the meeting ended then the Brent and Kilburn Times reporter, seated in the front row of the public gallery, found three members of what appeared to be the Communications Team, looming over her.

They quickly whisked her off for a post-cabinet briefing in what appeared to be a damage limitation exercise.

As she disappeared with her escorts into the innards of the drum I called out, 'Publish and be damned!'

I hope she does but meanwhile keep an eye on Wembley Matters for more on last night's meeting.

Preston Community Library likely to be weekends only from September until Christmas

From Preston Community Library Campaign

We are holding a meeting in the library at 2.30 this Thursday to update our volunteers, library users and supporters about recent developments, and to discuss the future of the library. All readers of this mailing are welcome.

At the moment, it seems very likely that from September until Christmas we will be sharing the building with a school and that the library will operate at weekends only. The future beyond Christmas remains very uncertain. I wish I could tell you more - the fact is that our current licence expires on 31 July and, with just four days to go, we are still waiting for anything in writing from Brent about what will happen after that.

This evening's meeting of Brent's Cabinet will be asked to extend school use of the Preston Library building until July 2017. The report states that  "Proposed future school use will take account of the local aspiration for this community library to continue in some way."  I will leave you to judge for yourselves whether this constitutes a strong commitment to the future of our library. The Cabinet meeting is at 7 tonight, 27 July, in the Civic Centre; members of the public are free to attend.

This Saturday there will be a plant sale from 1 until 5 at the library; plants for sale will include cannas, scented- and coloured-leaved geraniums, roses and several kinds of chillies. There will also be books for sale. All proceeds will be used to fund the library.

Our next quiz will be on Monday 10 August at 7.30 in The Preston. As usual we aim to start the quiz promptly at 8. The following quiz will be on Monday 21 September, same time, same venue.

Finally, four years ago Rosie Hayes reported on Brent's library closures for ynuk.tv. Last week she returned to the scene of the crime, and her report can be seen here:

Brent Council: South Kiburn Trust did not apply for music licence in time for the Festival

Contrary to reports that Brent Council has revoked the live music licence for the South Kilburn Festival at 5pm on Friday, the day before the Festival, a Brent Council spokesperson said today that the  South Kilburn Trust had not applied for the licence in time for the festival.

The live music was transferred from the park to the OK Club on Saturday.

Community Mental Health Service changes to be discussed by Brent Cabinet tonight

Plans to restructure Brent Community Mental Health services are on the already crowded for tonight's Cabinet.  The current budget is £5.4m and the proposals account for £350k of the £500k reduction tabled for 2015-16.  The model is the outcome of partnership wotk between Brent Council, Central and NW London NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Brent CCG.

The Report LINK gives the views of users and staff:

USERS

· The service needs to be genuinely holistic, taking into account all health and community support needs. 


· The service needs to be person-centred, with the service user setting their own goals. 


· Better information should be available at the point of referral about what services are available, and how they are accessed. 


· Assessment and Brief Treatment needs to be improved – assessments aren’t timely enough and brief treatment is not always provided. 


· Community services for those who are not in acute crisis need to be improved so that support doesn’t drop away when an individual’s mental health starts to improve. 


· The service needs to be better linked with the third sector in order to address broader needs. 


· There needs to be clear information for service users on what they should do if they go into crisis and they need emergency support. 


STAFF

· There should be fewer handoffs between teams and service users should move less between teams. 


· There should be clarity around third sector services in Brent and how service users can access them. 


· The single front door, with senior people carrying out the first assessment, should be more effective than it currently is where services find they are “playing catch up” with the core assessment – eliminate the need for more than one assessment. 


· Bureaucracy should be reduced in the new model

· The advantages and disadvantages of generic care coordinators should be considered – new skills have been learned, even if social care assessments aren’t as good. 


· The continuity of care should be improved. 


· Staff may feel unsettled if they don’t like the new structure – Brent already has 
recruitment and retention issues 


· The service should have sufficient capacity to manage demand 


· Links to other services, such as Housing, need to improve 


· Effective discharge planning with service users is essential. 


· The implementation plan has to be well thought through. The impact on service 
users has to be considered as services are reorganised and staff moved around. 


· Ensure specialist functions aren’t lost in the reorganisation. 


· Interfaces shouldn’t be replicated elsewhere, such as between Primary Care Plus 
and the secondary service 


The report recognises that a change of culture is required in the proposed new model:

Barnet Unison vs Capita Tribunal starts today

Message from Barnet Unison
 
Employment Tribunal starts TODAY 27 July 2015 

Barnet UNISON members may remember the following awful headlines:

 

CAPITA WINS - MASSIVE JOB LOSSES FOR BARNET COUNCIL STAFF LINK

UNISON call on Capita to reverse mass redundancies in Barnet LINK

130 Capita CSG redundancies is far too many....... LINK

Barnet UNISON represented members throughout the redundancy process after which UNISON submitted a claim against Capita. The legal process does take a long time, but finally the date of the hearing has been set.

 

The Tribunal will start on Monday 27 July 2015 at 10:00am at the Watford Employment Tribunal at the following address: Radius House, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1HP.

 

The case is due to last until Friday 7 August 2015.

 

For staff/members/public interested in this case Tribunal Hearings are open to the public

Council's Bridge Park deal with developers indicates little affordable housing & no transparency

The site including Unisys, Bridge Park, Technology House and car breakers

Last week the Planning Committee discussed how to increase the amount of affordable housing provided by developers to meet the 50% affordable target and to make the issue of Viability Assessments mores transparent LINK.

Tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss a report LINK on the Unisys-Bridge Park-Technology House development which admits that the amount of affordable housing will be much lower than 50% and where an Appendix with a 'sliding scale' of affordable house is 'restricted' and not available to the public.  The scheme consists of c500 homes, hotel and leisure centre.

The scheme is rather similar to the Willesden Library development where the Council gets a piece of infrastructure in exchange for providing land. As readers will know the Willesden Green flats contain no affordable units and were sold to overseas investors by Singapore agents. In exchange we got a small 'Cultural Centre' which by coincidence is due to open tomorrow. The community lost a good local bookshop, a cinema and an open space.

At Bridge Park a new leisure centre will be built with a much needed swimming pool, but other features of the current centre will not be provided.

Among the lost facilities will be the function hall, small business units, nursery and meeting rooms for faith groups.  PLIAS Resettlement , a community based not for profit organisation that provides services primary targeting offenders and ex-offenders to enable them to integrate them back into society, will lose its base.  They join Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the Welsh School that lost their premises through the redevelopment just up the road. The report admits that despite a pledge to Cabinet in June 2013 to help the nursery find new premises, that has not been done.

The report's Equalities Assessment claims that a positive aspect is:

With a high young population, the provision of new housing in the local area which the population could take advantage of is a positive in that it provides the opportunity for young people to move out of their family home bit also provides the opportunity to stay in the local community.

Even the officers seem to recognise that this might be seen as disingenuous:

However, it is not known if new housing would be affordable, especially given that Stonebridge ranks as the lowest ward in terms of median household incomes.

Of course it won't be affordable, which is presumably what your secret Appendix says!

Another aspect that might set the noses of ex-Tax Inspectors Dan Filson and Philip Grant twitching, are the developer and finance details.

The ex-Unisys site is owned by Harborough Invest INC (Harborough) to whom General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH) are a parent company).  The Council will sell part of its own site (Technology House) to Harborough/GMH.

In June 2013 the Cabinet agreed to pursue this option with a different subsidiary company of GMH: 'Tucan, a special purpose vehicle proposed for the purposes of this development'.  GMH now say that Tucan Investments is no longer in the picture and the Council state 'GMH have explained that it would be sensible for the landowner to be party in the agreement rather than a new development vehicle.'

The main report Financial Status Checks (4.6) states

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

Another aspects is of course ensuring that the Council (or rather we residents) are getting value for money. The reports says (3.6):

Since the June 2013 Executive, negotiations with GMH have been ongoing through their agent Nick Shattock Real Estate (NSRE) (now Chainwork Capital) [another change of name] to ensure that the Council receives best value for its lands. As a result the Heads of Terms have changed and it is proposed that the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth concludes negotiations and enters into Heads of Terms with GMH and Harborough Invest Inc in substantially the form set out in Appendix 3 of this report [which is restricted].

The Council employed Deloitte LLP in June 2014 to see if the disposal of their land to GMH represented 'best consideration' - Deloitte concluded it did not. the report goes on (4.4)

Deloitte LLP re-engaged with GMH, via their agent NSRE to seek in principal agreement to the various development costs, revenues and timescales. This exercise resulted in the Council receiving a revised offer from GMH as at September 2014. as a result of the discussions between DRE and NSRE, Deloitte LLP conclusion was that whilst they did not necessarily agree with all of the points raised in the NSRE offer letter, the Revised GMH offer for the Land at Bridge Park was above that of Deloittee revised opinion of value (Appendix 4) [yes, restricted of course].

The report goes on (5.6)

Through pursuing a deal with GMH the Council is not releasing the option of disposing of the Council land to the market and not giving other organisations the chance to bid for the opportunity if this had been available  on the open market. The land price has been robustly tested in order to align with best market price and external consultants to Brent have undertaken detailed development appraisal, valuation and sensitivity resting work confirming the GMH & Harborough proposal to represent best value.

The consultant's report has not been published.

Persuaded?

Brent Cabinet to discuss 'transforming' adult social care and budget cuts

The Brent Library 'Transformation' project, which really meant closures, has given the word a bad name but it is back again at Cabinet on Monday July 27th with a report 'Adult Social Care Transforming Day Care - Direct Services'. LINK

Given the history it is worth careful perusal.

KINGSBURY RESOURCES CENTRE

The Kingsbury Resources Centre provides day care services to older people aged 65+ at its premises in Stag Lane. The reports says that it currently supports about 60 people with average daily attendance 25 including 4 wheelchair uses. Eight users have a learning disability. It operates between 9am and 4pm and users attend for an average of 6 hours 3 days a week. There are 8 staff.

The consultation about its future found that 'users do not want to lose the day centre as a meeting place and they value and do not want to lose the friendship groups they have formed at the centre'.

One worrying aspect is the comment that 'Some people expressed that the repeated focus on day centres made them feel like a burden to the council and did (sic) that they did not feel valued.'

The reports says that the concerns raised were 'not unexpected' and officers were 'able to reassure both users and carers by clarifying that the consultation was about providing services in different ways, not reducing or removing services.'

Various options are discussed and rejected in the report including asking 'the voluntary and community centr'( MF that may mean 'sector') to take over the  the Centre's running, a Council partnership with another organisation to share risk and jointly manage the Centre, the council continuing to own and run the Centre but to develop it into a specialist dementia care service.

The reasons for rejection of the options include under-utilisation, spare capacity in existing dementia day opportunities and the lack of any appetite for risk share or joint management.

The report therefore opts to close down the Kingsbury Resource Centre and either sell it off or transfer it as part of a community assets transfer project.  'Spot purchase placements within the voluntary sector' would be made:

Closing Kingsbury Resource Centre would generate a potential saving of £150k on the current budget and a potential capital receipt if the buildings is sold.

NEW MILLENNIUM DAY CENTRE

This is a purpose built Centre close to Willesden Centre for Health and Care and the Council has a 90 year lease. It provides day care to 87 people who have a physical disability, 28 people who have a learning disability 'of which 8 are between the ages of 55 and 77 and could be considered eligible for older people and dementia services'. An average of 35 people use the day centre on any given day and some have been attending for up to 30 years 'and have become very attached top the Centre.'

It operates Monday to Friday 9am to 4pm and has 14 full time staff.

The report states:

'The focus at this centre was to explore the opportunity to support users to access alternative existing provision and to involve them in a co-production process to develop new services which will not only meet existing needs but also support greater independence.'

All laudable but likely to raise suspicion when the Council is also anxious to save money. Rather than consultation the process here was 'co-production' and consisted of 13 users and carer meetings, followed by further meetinsg with carers, visits to Thurrock council to review their service model, further meetings to share a potential model with users and carers and meetings to get feedback on the models.

The report states:

Users were worried about the centre closing and felt that the changes to their services seem to be a continuous process and have been ongoing for at least the last 6 years. They felt the change needed to stop. 

Then comes the reassurance:

However, through discussion users were confident that a co-produced solution would be the best way to ensure that they had more control over changes to that service, and they were clear that the aim of co-production was to develop a more sustainable service which would hopefully mean that there would be less need for a change to the services in the future.

Referring to lack of trust in the Council the report states:

Discussions showed  that this was primarily as a result of the many users having been through changes to in house day services in 2012 and some issues with the process.  Through the co-production process people were able to separate their feelings about previous experiences and the need to bring a positive attitude and open mind into the discussions about the future of the service.

The centre itself was strongly supported:

All users and carers spoke in strong terms about how much they valued their day centre. Users were clear that the centre is special and that they feel like one big happy family....Many users raised concerns that they do not want to lose the relationship they have with staff.

The report says that the co-production process established that  it order to maintain quality sustainable services and end uncertainty an enhanced 'social enterprise model' would be most suitable to include:

• Using the centre as a hub but supporting users to access the community more
• Make better use of the buildings through extended hours, potentially including evenings and weekends
• Offering 'different and more personalised respite support for carers as well as users - including the  possibility of pooling budgets so groups could make  'holiday arrangements at Centre Parks or ehsewhere'.

There are many more claimed advantages listed in the report. Officers recommend that they bring a full business case to Cabinet in the Autumn to include details on structure, governance, finance, risk, timescales and other potential implications. The financial implications would recognise 'the long term challenge for the council so any community enterprise would be seeking to reduce operating costs.'

That is is perhaps the sting in the tail when  the wider 'transformation of direct services initiative has a full saving requirement of  £755,000 over 2015-16 and 2016-17  (£432,000 and £323,00).'

TUDOR GARDENS RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME

Tudor Gardens is a relatively new residential care home. Most of the staff and residents moved from Melrose House 4 years ago.  It is the only in-house, directly provided residential care home left ion Brent.  It currently provides support for 14 people who have a learning disability and has capacity for 15. 24 staff provide support.

The proposal LINK is to de-register the home which the report argues will give tenants greater security and enables them to claim a wider range of benefits, including housing benefit. Housing benefit would reduce the council's Adult Care costs with an expected income stream from rents of £100k annually.

The Tudor Gardens budget for 2015-16 is £872,000  and conversion to a 'Supported Living facility' is expected to save £300,000.

This would include savings through out-sourcing care and support and would affect the current care workers.

Residents wanted to keep the existing staff, specifically individual key workers.  Officers told them that this may be possible through TUPE but could not be guaranteed.

Since the Cabinet agenda was published  an addendum has been added which I think speaks for itself:

Subsequent to publishing the Tudor Gardens report, one of the consultees, requested that two changes be made to the report. The changes requested related to the specific reporting of the consultation and what was said at the consultation meetings.

The first change is in the main report Section 3.6 to provide further clarification.
From:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change but supported the supported living model.

To:
In February 2015 Cabinet agreed to consult with residents, families and stakeholders on the proposal to de-register Tudor Gardens. The results of the consultation suggest that relatives did not want change. They would prefer Tudor Gardens remain as a residential care home. However, they also said that they would work with Brent officers if the decision was made to move to Supported Living, especially if this meant no-one moving out."

The second change is a point of accuracy in the consultation report. The change is required on the last but one page of the consultation report, page 13.
From:
"Most of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

To:
"None of the residents understood or had the mental capacity to understand the changes proposed in the view of all relatives and carers, and the independent advocate, in addition to attending the meetings the advocate went to see residents individually to see if she could help them understand the proposals. She concluded she could not, and agreed with Ken Knight's summary of their inability to follow what was being discussed at the meetings, where their interjections bore no relation to the matters in hand."

Clearly the last change is hugely significant.

Inserting a personal note a similar process took place in my mothers' care home in Bedfordshire and I well remember the confusion, anxiety and depression of residents when they realised that they might lose the care staff with whom they were familiar and often saw a friends.

In turn the care staff knew the individual histories, character and idiosyncrasies of the elderly people which resulted in especially sympathetic and supportive care.

The value of those relationships and that background knowledge must not be under estimated.

As with all out-sourcing the eventual reduction in the pay and conditions of workers is a major concern and particulalrly when care workers are already underpaid.