Call for action by councillors to challenge cuts to local government funding

The People's Assembly Against Austerity have put forward these thoughts and actions as a further contribution to the discussion on local government cuts. This is clearly relevant to the debnate at Brent Momentum on Saturday.

The Peoples’ Assembly is completely opposed to Tory Governments cuts and campaigns against them without qualification. We aim to build a national movement to stop the cuts and will support tactics that will help to build this movement.

Local council budgets is one area that has been hit particularly hard by the Government. Some councils have faced a 40% cut to their budgets compared to 2010. This has led to hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses across the country and the closure, or privatisation, of essential services. This inevitably hits the most vulnerable in society hardest. We now face a situation where Central Government is set to impose further cuts to local council budgets and there is difficulty for councils to even provide basic statutory services.

The situation when campaigning against council imposed cuts is therefore more complicated. Our attitude toward councillors and local councils can be considered in three categories:

1.  Those that fully support the neo-liberal austerity agenda and work hard to apply cuts and privatisation of services

2.  Those that are opposed to austerity but have applied cuts locally, reflecting the budget given to the council by Central Government.

3.  Those who are opposed to cuts, vote against local council austerity budgets, try to minimise them and (the better ones) work with others to resist and challenge them.

The PA is opposed to council cuts and supports local groups in their efforts to resist these and build the protest movement. In an ideal situation hundreds of councillors / councils would fall into category 3.

However, to date, not one council has set a ‘needs budget’ or ‘illegal budget’ rejecting cuts to council budgets from the government. However, there are thousands of councillors who fall into category 2 – those that are against having to make cuts but don’t feel like there’s any other option than to set a budget with the allowance set by the government.  On the question of calls for councils to set ‘needs budgets’ or ‘illegal budgets’ we recognise that where that may be done there are legitimate concerns from councillors that the Government will impose commissioners to politically manage the budget set by Government, or simply that they have no other option than to work with the budget they have been given.  Councils will have usable reserves but, in recognising that this is likely to be a long struggle, they may not wish to spend these reserves quickly.  Others may prefer to invest the reserves in socially useful areas, such as housing, which would increase revenues, create local jobs and meet a pressing need.

The job of the anti-austerity movement should be to work with any councillor who is opposed to austerity and create a movement that can shift as many councillors from category 2 to category 3.

The PA is asking local councillors to sign the following letter. To sign follow this LINK

As Councillors we believe this Tory Government's ideological opposition to public services lies behind the deliberate underfunding of Local Authorities.

Councils have faced unprecedented cuts; Local Authority grants in England have been slashed, with £12.5 billion of cuts and half a million Council workers losing their jobs since 2010. Osborne has forced through 40% cuts to Council budgets meaning that local authorities face the reality of cutting frontline services including Adult Social Care and Children's Services, leaving those that rely on them at risk.

We believe that austerity is a political choice. We oppose all cuts from Westminster and believe Osborne’s plans for Local Government will only make a bad situation worse.

We call on the government to reverse cuts to council funding so we are able to provide essential services our communities rely on. Furthermore we call for an end to austerity that is seeing living standards for the majority fall. This is why we also support the national march for Health, Homes, Jobs & Education on Saturday 16 April 2016 in London.

LGA set out proposals on local government budgets and powers ahead of the Budget

The Local Government Association have issued the statement below which makes interesting reading in the light of discussion about how communities should resist local government cuts..

 

Councils could boost housebuilding, increase the number of school places and reduce unemployment if they are handed extra powers to run local services in this week’s Budget, town hall leaders say today.

The Local Government Association has set out a range of proposals for the Chancellor to consider as part of the Budget which would not only improve people’s lives and protect the local services valued by residents but would also deliver sustainable savings to the public purse.

The Chancellor has recently suggested further public sector spending cuts might be needed towards the end of the decade to combat slower than expected economic growth and to meet the Government’s manifesto pledge to achieve a surplus by 2020.

More than half of all day-to-day departmental spending by government – health, schools, defence and overseas aid – is currently protected. If this continues, other unprotected areas – including local government – could be hit once again as a result, the LGA said.

Councils face significant reductions to government grants over the next four years. Local government leaders are also warning George Osborne not to exacerbate these funding challenges by deepening planned cuts as part of his Budget this week.

Council funding cuts in recent years have had a knock-on effect on other parts of the public sector, such as the NHS, which are being left to pick up the pieces leading to a number of false economies. As a result, the LGA insists that ring-fencing certain budgets no longer makes any sense and could put the very services being protected at risk.

Lord Porter, LGA Chairman, said:

“Councils have more than played their part in trying to balance the nation’s books in recent years and all councils will have to continue to find substantial savings from local services to plug funding gaps over the next four years. Extra council tax powers and transitional funding will help some but won’t be enough to completely offset the full impact of funding pressures.

“Giving councils the option to fix longer-term funding settlements has been an important step and rightly recognised by government as being essential to give councils the financial certainty they need to protect local services. It would be perverse to then undermine this with further cuts handed down just one month later.

“Cutting local government to prop up other departments is a false economy. The Government should carefully consider the effect council funding cuts have on other parts of the public sector and whether to tear down the ring-fence around health and education spending.

“Pumping money into the NHS while councils receive less social care and public health funding is a false economy. A properly funded social care system is essential to alleviate the pressure on the NHS while schools and councils also need to be able to pool resources to ensure children are school ready, reduce drop-out rates and improve children’s physical and mental health.

“The Government should use our submission as the blueprint for empowering local government to play a leading role in balancing the nation’s books while improving public services and local economies.”

Students and teachers unite to support tomorrow's 6th Form College Strike

There will be a national strike of NUT members at 6th form colleges tomorrow. The strike us supported by the NUS. The government is attempting to take legal action against the strike which was supported by an 86% Yes vote on a turnout of 44%. The government is also trying to bribe colleges into becoming academies by offering exemption from VAT if they convert.

This is what the NUT said about the action:

-->

About the 6th form college funding campaign

 
Cuts to 16-19 funding have been much greater than cuts to school funding. Sixth form colleges are under threat. Teachers in sixth form colleges are facing threats to pay, working conditions and employment. Students in this extremely successful sector are facing threats to their education. You can read more about the issues in this briefing document. Use it and the other materials on this page to raise awareness of the issues with your colleagues, friends and the public and build support for the campaign. It is vital that we put pressure on MPs and Ministers to tackle the post-16 funding crisis. MPs across the parties are expressing support for sixth form colleges.

What the NUT is seeking:

1. Restoration of 16-19 funding to the levels which existed before the Coalition Government started its cuts programme
2. Exemption from VAT for colleges – without them having to apply for academy status
3. Removal of the threat of closure or merger – and recognition of sixth form colleges’ achievements.

- See more  HERE 

Some vital additional information on South Kilburn for Brent Cabinet

The South Kilburn Regeneration is on the Cabinet agenda tonight and members are updated on progress. They are given an officer's report that went to Scrutiny Committee but not a report from Scrutiny Committee itself.

So that they can be informed I print below the Minutes of that meeting including points made by Pete Firm for the residents and tenants and the Committee's request for further information.

Readers may be interested to hear that another report reveals that the South Kilburn Trust has c£6m in its coffers LINK  

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close, Richard Barratt explained that this was outside the regeneration area but the opportunity was being taken to try to influence the improvement of the area. The Committee heard how work with the police attempted to design out trouble spots within the new redevelopments.  Members were interested in receiving more information on this. 

Members were also concerned that the planned expansion of local schools would provide sufficient places for local children.  Richard Barrett explained the plans for the expansion of Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junior schools.  He explained that discussions were ongoing to get agreement to an arrangement that both schools supported but that it was at an early stage.

Members expressed their continuing concern over the need to provide better outcomes for local people and not just provide new housing.  At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Conneely addressed the committee and stated that local people were very concerned about the way they were being decanted and moved back into the area.  There was concern that local communities were being split up and the implication of this particularly for older people.  She wanted to see the process completed on time and people treated fairly.  Richard Barrett replied that every tenant was visited to assess their needs for the property they were moving in to.  In partnership with the housing service, decanted flats were being used for temporary accommodation.  Members asked for more detail on how this arrangement was working. 

The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan and Richard Barrett for their attendance.  

Requests for information:

·         accurate figures on the number of social housing units existing pre redevelopment and the number post redevelopment compared to the number of private units provided.

·         members to be provided with a schedule of rents for the area including a comparison with the pre redevelopment level of rents.

·         a population profile for the area showing how the number of people was projected to rise.

·         information on employment in the area so that it could be seen if the regeneration of the area was leading to a rising employment rate.

·         more information on how the plans for the area attempted to design out potential crime and the involvement of the police in this.

·         more information on the use of decanted units to house homeless people, including the number involved, the timeframes involved and the financial considerations.

Will 'Social Value' procurement take into account ethical standards?

Brent Council's strategy for Social Value in procurement will be discussed at Cabinet tonight. The documents do not mention ethical procurement except with reference to sourcing practices:

Ethical sourcing practices: Ensuring compliance with UK, EU and international standards, promoting fair trade and fair pricing policies, tackling corruption, child labour and similar social issues.

However this does not appear again in the council's glossy publication on Social Value LINK

During the controversy over Veolia's bid for the Public Realm contract there were promises by the council to look at developing an ethical procurement policy.  Veolia was opposed because at the time it provided infrastuctural support for  illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Campaigners through the public money should not be used to support such practices by awarding the company a multi-million contract.

Recently the government has moved to ban councils and other public bodies from making procurement decisions that take into account ethical issues.

Cllr Tom Miller was among signatories of an attempt  by councillors to challenge this (see below)  and other organisations, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have campaigned on the issue:

 

Letter from councillors regarding attacks on local democracy

Proposed regulations would give central government powers to veto investment decisions made by democratically elected local councils if it believes that local decisions conflict with the views of Westminster politicians.

Scores of councils have in recent years taken steps such as adopting fair trade principles or excluding fossil fuel, tobacco and arms companies from their investment portfolios, following campaigns by pension fund members and local citizens.

Many councils have passed motions stating they will not procure services from companies that avoid tax, aid and abet Israeli violations of international law or from construction companies that blacklist trade union members.

The Government now aims to undermine the right of councils to make democratic decisions reflecting local public opinion and the views of local authority pension fund members, who under current proposals would have less rights to influence pension fund investment decisions than those investing in personal pensions.

These proposals fatally undermine the government’s stated commitment to transfer power to local government and communities and represent a serious attack on local democracy.

We urge the government to reconsider

London rises up against the Housing Bill

Today Londoners came out to reclaim their city from developers and the Housing Bill. They demand homes for people not profit, building of council housing, an end to social cleansing and much more. The pictures on the continuation page tell the whole story.

Standards at Brent Council – Will Standards Committee set a good example?

This guest blog by Philip Grant continues his attempt to ensure Brent Council displays high standards of conduct in public life.
 

In a blog article of 2 January 2016 LINK I referred to the Annual Report which Brent Council’s Monitoring Officer was presenting to its Standards Committee the following week, and some matters of concern which it raised. I was not able to attend the meeting, so was interested to read what the minutes of the committee meeting on 7 January would have to say about that Report. This is the text of the draft minute for that item, which appeared on the Council’s website last Friday:

‘5. Annual Report to the Standards Committee 2014 - 2015

The committee considered the circulated report of the Monitoring Officer which updated members on conduct issues and the work of the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer for the period December 2014 to December 2015.

The committee was informed that the process of recruiting Independent Persons would begin later in January. Councillor Warren enquired about the Council’s existing arrangements. He proposed that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile in order to give the role greater credibility by bringing forward their role in the process of considering complaints. Concern was expressed that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer and that such an arrangement was not followed in other boroughs.

RESOLVED:

(i)            that the Monitoring Officer’s Annual report 2014/15 be noted;

(ii)          that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of the Standards Committee.’

While I am glad to see that Standards Committee did more than simply ‘note’ the Annual Report, which is what the Monitoring Officer had recommended they should do, the brevity of this minute raises more questions than it gives answers to.

1.     What was Cllr. Warren’s enquiry ‘about the Council’s existing arrangements’ (for Independent Persons?), and what was he told in reply to his enquiry?

2.     Which other committee members raised enquiries on, or made comments about, the Annual Report; what points did they raise and what answers were they given?

3.     Was Cllr.Warren’s proposal ‘that the Independent Person should be given a higher profile’ put as a formal motion, and what discussion (and vote?) took place on this proposal?

4.     Who was it that expressed concern ‘that this could potentially undermine the position of the Monitoring Officer’, and what reasons were put forward in support of that concern?

5.     Who put forward the resolution (not referred to in the Annual Report itself) ‘that the procedure for dealing with complaints be considered at the next meeting of Standards Committee’, and what views were expressed “for” or “against” this proposal?

The minutes of the meeting at which the previous Annual Report was presented (9 December 2014) give details of a number of questions raised and comments made by committee members; these are followed by a 17-line paragraph beginning: ‘In reply to the issues raised, Kathy Robinson advised that …’ which gives answers to the points raised. [For information: Kathy Robinson was the Council solicitor deputising for the then Monitoring Officer, Fiona Ledden.] Why was that precedent, and the good practice it showed of properly recording in the minutes what happened, not followed for the meeting on 7 January 2016? And how can the draft minute for item 5, quoted above, ‘be approved as an accurate record of the meeting’?

The purpose of Standards Committee, as set out on the Council’s website, is:

‘To promote high standards of conduct by councillors, to receive allegations that councillors may have failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct and hold hearings into allegations of misconduct.’

At the heart of those high standards of conduct are the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership (see footnote below for an explanation of what these principles should mean in practice), which all members must comply with whenever they are conducting any business of the Council.

I hope that the members of Standards Committee (to whom I am sending a copy of this blog article) will show openness and accountability, by amending the draft minutes for item 5, so that they record properly the actions of those who took part in the discussions on the Annual Report and the reasons given for those actions, so that the public can hold them to account. The amended minutes for the meeting on 7 January should then be posted on the Council’s website, in place of the draft minutes, as soon as possible after 21 March.

By amending the draft minutes, Standards Committee would demonstrate leadership, in promoting high standards of conduct. It would also avoid the integrity and honesty of committee members being called into question, which could be the case if it appeared that the minutes were deliberately being kept vague, as part of ‘a culture of covering up uncomfortable truths’. Failure to amend the draft minutes would provide further evidence for the criticisms I made about Brent Council in my open letter to its Chief Executive on 27 November 2015 LINK

So, please come on, Standards Committee, and set a good example over standards of conduct to other members, to encourage public confidence in Brent Council.

Philip Grant,
13 March 2016

Footnote:

Brent’s Members’ Code of Conduct says:

‘You must maintain a high standard of conduct, and comply with the following general conduct principles:

The General Principles

Selflessness – you should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

Integrity – you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.

Objectivity – you should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.

Accountability – you should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.

Openness – you should be as open as possible about your actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.

Honesty – you should be truthful in your council work and avoid creating situations where your honesty may be called into question.

Leadership – you should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Observer reopens the mystery of the Mary Fedden paintings, the deputy and the council

The Observer today  LINK asks some pertinent questions about  the paintings by Mary Fedden that were given to Copland High School (now Ark Elvin) and then, according to Brent Council, retrieved by them from the school, which was hit by a financial scandal, and 'returned to the Portland Gallery on Tuesday 13th May 2014.' The Council went on to say, 'It is a matter for the estate of the late Mrs Fedden to decide where the paintings are displayed, not the council.'

A former art teacher ar Copland, Jenny Williams, is reported by the Observer as commenting, 'If Mary Fedden wanted the children in Wembley to have these paintings, that is where they should be. It is very sad if after all that has happened at the school they are simply sold off to a private collector.'

The issue of whether Fedden wanted children to have the paintings is critical. Regular readers may recall previous coverage on Wembley Matters of this issue. I reprint some of comments below:

Seeing 'millions' and Copland School in the same article should ring a bell with Mr Butt and Mr Pavey and have them both sticking a post-it Note to Self on their fridges as follows:

'1. Find out progress of the 'pursuit of costs through the civil courts' which we promised when we told the gobsmacked judge in the dodgy headmaster Davies case that we weren't applying for costs.

2. Find out progress in the pursuit of the overpaid 'bonuses' to Davies and chums in same case.

3. Find out what really happened to the Mary Fedden paintings

4. Try really really really hard to tell Cara that we need to have a word today.
Or maybe leave it til Monday ..................or December .............'

Reply

Alison Hopkins24 October 2014 at 18:22

What were the Mary Fedden paintings? I mean, I know who she was, but were there some in Brent's possession?

Martin Francis24 October 2014 at 18:25
This appeared as a comment on WM in October 2013:
You refer to the tricking of the aged artist Mary Fedden into 'donating' expensive paintings supposedly for a 'gallery' at the school to inspire 'deprived' youngsters. Evans (deputy head)  paid a number of visits to her house taking young pupils with him as 'leverage'. These children were witnesses to his eagerness to get his hands on the artwork.. The paintings were then sold at Sothebys by Evans. Others have supplied the police with evidence corroborating this. Why no prosecution yet?

See http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/jun/07/tory-deputy-head-paintings-mary-fedden



Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:42
Another comment somewhere 'had it on authority' that some of the paintings came into the possession of Brent Council. The assumption seemed to be that the paintings Evans hadn't yet managed to flog, he claimed were, of course, given to the school and, as he was by this time suspended or resigned, he handed them over to their 'rightful owner' (or the Council as Copland's ultimate authority). 

Given the Council's feeble efforts in the whole saga, they probably returned them to him!

Anonymous24 October 2014 at 19:47
I know for a fact that the police have been in contact with witnesses within the last 12 months. No action though.