Brent Council Tax to rise 3.99% in EACH of the next 3 years and borrowing to increase

In a report LINK going before Cabinet on February 13th Brent's Chief Finance Officer is recommending a Council Tax of 3.99% over eachof the next 3 financial years:

In October 2016, Cabinet agreed to consult on a 3.99% increase in Council Tax (2% Adult Social Care precept plus 1.99% for general purpose). Some additional savings of £4.4m were also consulted upon. Following that, in December 2016, as part of the provisional local government finance settlement, central government recognised the immediate pressures in the care market. It has therefore allowed local authorities to bring forward up to 2% of the precept for 2019/20, by increasing 2017/18 and 2018/19 council tax by an additional 1%, in return for a corresponding reduction in the precept for 2019/20. Brent could therefore increase Council Tax by up to 4.99% in each of 2017/18 and 2018/19, but if it exercised this flexibility then the maximum allowable increase in 2019/20 would be 1.99%.

 After due consideration the recommendation of this report is that the budget should be constructed on the basis of a council tax increase of 3.99% in each of the next three years. This is what was consulted upon and so is clearer for residents. The additional flexibility announced in December 2016 is also of relatively minor financial benefit to the council, and has negligible long term impact from 2019/20 onwards. By increasing the council tax in this way the impact of stark and ongoing reductions to local government funding since 2010 will be partly mitigated.

The report has been issued before the budget consultation with the public has been completed and a report on the consultation will be tabled before the Cabinet meets.  Clearly this leaves little room for any change as a result of the consultation. 

In fact consultation responses have been low with 57 on line (with no clear pattern of responses) at the time the report was written and these attendances at Brent Connects meetings:

The report goes on:

Although demography, in this context, is typically discussed as a cost pressure it also results in additional income. As a consequence of this, and of the planning and regeneration policies adopted by the council, the council tax base (i.e. the number of properties on which council tax is paid) is growing significantly year on year. This increases the council tax payable to the council, and helps the council finance the various pressures caused by population growth.The council is required to balance its budget in this year as in all years. 

In order to balance its budget the council has developed an approach that will help it meet the goals of the Borough Plan and Brent 2020 Vision, comprising:

Increases in council tax to minimise the requirement to reduce services; 

Innovative capital investment to reduce costs in key services, such as temporary accommodation;

Planning for growth in services facing major demographic pressure for example adult social care;

and Investing in key services for the Brent community, e.g. community safety.

The  report states that if the 3% Adult Social Care Council Tax increase is not approved Adult Social Care in 2017-18 will have to be cut by £2.1m.  This is in addition to further cuts in the overall council budget required of £2.3m in 2017-18 and £2.1m in 2018-19.

The Council hopes to achieve  £5.6m through a civic enterprise project to increase income from Council assets (you have probably see the posters encouraging people to get married at the Civic Centre) and £8m from improving commissioning and procurement services. The Council is hoping to sell its procurement services to schools.

It is clear that increasing the number of properties in the borough is seen as one way of increasing Council Tax income, even if they are not affordable for ordinary Brent residents on an average income. Population growth increases income for charged services such as parking.

The Council has a big capital investment programme and it is planned to increase borrowing to finance the projects. Expenditure was £111.7m less than expected this year due to a variety of delivery delays and the balance will be carried forward. The Council is planning to increase the amount it raises and increase the authorised limit:

It is important to stress that the authorised limit – the maximum amount that the council may borrow – has for a number of years been several hundred millions pounds above the level of actual borrowing – last year it was set at £400m above the level of actual borrowing. It is proposed to increase that by £100m to £500m, in light of the Council’s investment strategy, while recognising that the Council has been prudent with its estimate of the additional resources that may finance capital spend. Potentially, the additional growth would cost up to an additional £3m to service annually, should the borrowing become necessary, and if this was not offset by additional income or savings. The calculation noted above merely follows from the strength of the council’s balance sheet, as it is largely prescribed by statute and regulation. 


(Bracketed red offsets borrowing requirement)

One area of interest is the school budget where the report notes that:

As at 31 March 2016, Brent’s maintained schools held £24.8m in balances, a relatively high figure, prudently held in view of upcoming school funding reforms. [Cllr Warren attacked the level of school balances at the last Full Council Meeting]

Overall DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant)  funding has increased for 2017/18 due to growing pupil numbers, however on a per pupil level it remains a cash flat settlement, with the main schools block funded on 41,879 pupils at £5,522 per pupil totalling £231.3m. The other blocks support early years provision, funded at £23.4m, and high needs provision which includes all special schools, funded at £52.7m. Total DSG funding for 2017/18 is £307.4m.  

A number of schools are expanding and as a result overall pupil numbers have increased by over 500 in Brent. The two secondary schools experiencing rapid growth of 58 and 116 pupils have gained £238K and £675K, whilst 26 primary schools experienced growth in pupil numbers with an average gain of £125K. Reductions in funding are also in line with decreasing pupil numbers, for example two secondary schools have significant drops of 25 and 54, which results in funding reductions of £260K and £441K respectively. In the primary phase, 30 schools had a fall in pupil numbers resulting in an average reduction of £44k.

After the expansions of recent years a reduction in pupil numbers in a number of schools is significant, particular when the potential impact of Brexit on immigration numbers is taken into account.  The major factor affecting school budgets is of course the reductions involved when the government introduces a new National Funding Formula.

Conrad Hall, Chief Finance Officer, commenting on the overall Brent budget states:

In considering the budget report, the following key considerations should be highlighted in particular.:

The extent to which the overspends in 2016/17 are structural, that is, that they will or may recur in 2017/18, is a particular risk. Any element of these overspends that may be structural will, if not addressed during 2017/18, require further savings to be agreed next year to offset this. Whilst plans are in place to address this the scale of risk is significant.

Delivering the saving programme agreed in February 2016 will present substantial management challenges, particularly around procurement and civic enterprise savings. Again, considerable management attention has been and is being devoted to ensure that these can be delivered, but it is important to stress again the inherent risks in delivering such a large and complex programme. 
 

That said, the budget now proposed is realistic and affordable, albeit challenging. The increases in council tax set out, if agreed in this and subsequent years, will generate significant additional revenue over time, minimising the number of difficult new decisions about funding for specific services to be proposed. If agreed, this budget would provide for affordable services in 2017/18 and 2018/19, but a further gap of nearly £13m remains in 2019/20. Building on the outcome based reviews and other initiatives to start to close this gap quickly will be an important future consideration.

1. 
   

Barry Gardiner reacts to 'Beijing Bling' story with 'no impropriety' statement

Barry Gardiner Labour MP for Brent North is honoured today with a front page splash, double page inside splash and an editorial in the Times newspaper.

The story claims that Gardiner, currently Shadow International Trade Secretary has received more than £180,000 in staff costs from the law firm Christine Lee and Co that acts as chief legal adviser to the Chinese embassy.

Further it is claimed that this partly funds the salary of Lee's son who works in Gardiner's Westminster Office.

The Times draws attention to Gardiner's championing of Chinese involvement in the Hinckley Point nuclear project.  Clearly that is also sensitive to his previous role as Shadow Energy and Climate Change minister as well as his current international trade post.

In its editorial entitled Beijing Bling the Times says:

If the commercial relationship and Mr Gardiner's positions on China were merely coincidental, it betrays not venality so much as naivety.  China has repeatedly demonstrated its appetite for overt interference in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to further its commercial interests and buttress its ambition for global superpower status. Its world-beating credential in cyberespionage and penchant for intellectual property theft are well-established.

This blog has in the past been critical of Gardiner's close relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi LINK  and clearly in his current role as shadow international trade secretary he has to be very careful to avoid any accusations of bias.

On the other hand devoting all this space to a story which the Times itself admits includes 'no suggestion of impropriety' may be part of the anti-Corbyn strategy of the Murdoch press. Gardiner is the only survivor of the three Brent MPs who were in Corbyn's shadow team until the Article 50 vote and several other shadow ministers have resigned or may face sacking as a result of the rebellion. Adding to that turmoil the forced resignation or sacking of a Corbyn loyalist, who has recently received some plaudits for his media appearances, may be the intention.

Today Gardiner placed this statement on his website LINK:

“Christine Lee & Co have generously supported my work as a Member of Parliament over many years since we first worked together to fight against plans to redevelop Oriental City and the loss of homes, livelihoods and community ties in Brent. The firm has enabled me to appoint a strong research support team to hold the government to account. This has always been transparently and appropriately recorded in the register of members’ interests. The Times article has revealed nothing that was not already in the public domain and they themselves admit that the secondment of staff was properly declared and state that “there is no suggestion of impropriety”.

We are likely to know tomorrow whether a complaint to the parliamentary standards commissioner, Kathryn Hudson, will result in an investogation.                                                    

Route and speakers for tomorrow's Stop the Muslim Ban march

March route (click to enlarge

Tomorrow's march starts at the US Embassy Grosvenor Square (assemble 11am to set off around midday) Bond Street is the nearest tube and goes via the above route to Downing Street. Those unable to march the whole route could join at Picadilly Circus or Trafalgar Square.

Please bring your friends, colleagues and family members along: let us send a powerful response to racism and bigotry.

The list of speakers will include Dawn Butler MP, Catherine West MP, Andrew Murray (Unite the Union), Kevin Courtney (General Secretary of NUT), Moazzam Begg (former Guantanamo prisoner), Giles Fraser (parish priest of St. Mary's, Newington and former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral), Rebecca Johnson (Green Party), Salma Yaqoob (anti-racism and anti-war campaigner), and others. Video statements from Jeremy Corbyn and Peter Hain will also be shown.

Brent Council has no record of impact of action against landlords on displaced tenants

None of us are in favour of rogue landlords, over-crowded or dangerous accommodation but when the local and regional press publish celebratory press releases from Brent Council I often wonder about the fate of those displaced by action against such landlords. A possible unintended consequence of the  Council's action.

Do the displaced tenants add to the homelessness figures, are they officially accepted as unintentionally homeless, are children involved,  do some of the displaced end up joining rough sleepers?

I made the following FoI request to Brent Council to try and find out:

Please provide details of tenants displaced as a consequence of action
taken against landlords (overcrowding, unlicensed etc) under the Landlord
Licensing Scheme for the year commencing January 1st 2016.

1. The total number of displacements including children.
2. The status of tenants - single men, single women, couples, children.
3. The nationality/ethnicity of these tenants.
4. The destination/outcomes for these tenants as a result of displacement
eg hostel. temporary accommodation, bed and breakfast hotel, social
housing, referral to homeless charity
5. The total number accepted as homeless by the Council.

The Council replied that they had searched electronic and paper records and they did not hold the information requested.

As it is not tenants, but landlords, who are the guilty party in such cases, I think the lack of any record of impact on people displaced by Council action is a failure of duty of care.

Newsquest questioned over ‘opaque’ annual accounts and boardroom pay after staff cuts

 From the NUJ which is of particular interest regarding the health and viability of local newspapers.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has asked for questions to be answered by Newsquest following the publication of its 2015 accounts.

The union said the newspaper group should clarify why its latest accounts have wiped hundreds of millions of pounds off its revenue column, turned in a paper loss of £47 million and sliced more than 3,500 staff off the books compared to the previous 12 months.

Newsquest, a subsidiary of US giant Gannett, eventually filed its official UK accounts for 2015 four months late with Companies House and revealed that it had moved to a new accounting model which strips away the need for more detailed reporting of its figures.

So while in 2014, Newsquest reported turnover of £279 million and operating profits of £51.3 million, the newly produced figures for 2015 mysteriously show these as just £1.09 million and an operating loss of £47.2 million respectively – mainly because of an “impairment charge” or write down on the value of its local companies of £55.6 million.

Newsquest said it has adopted a new FRS 101 accounting standard and says in its accounts it has done so to take “advantage of disclosure exemptions allowed under this standard”

In 2014 Newsquest quoted its official total staffing number as 3,997 (of which 1,369 were editorial), in 2015 the total was only given as 393 (149 editorial).

But the 2015 accounts do shed more light on the pay of Henry Faure Walker and appear to contradict some claims by the company about his overall pay package made when it was revealed earlier this month as $1.45 million.

Then a company spokesperson said the chief executive’s salary was £310,000 - whereas the latest figures show a package of £591,804 for the “highest paid director”. And while Newsquest said publicly Walker’s pension payment from the company was £10,000 for the year, the accounts say this figure was actually £18,000.

The company spokesperson also sought to explain the high overall total for Walker’s pay package as in part due to an undisclosed relocation package. This is now revealed as £47,000 in the accounts – worth about the salaries of two journalists made redundant during the year.

The union believes that at a time of continuing painful austerity for Newsquest’s employees, the company should not cherry pick the details it chooses to make public about its profitability, trading state and especially boardroom pay. Local NUJ chapels have been told there would be no pay rise for members in 2017.

Chris Morley, NUJ Northern and Midlands organiser, said:

We have been tracking the non-filing of Newsquest accounts for months given the importance to staff, who have suffered nearly a decade without a pay rise, to know more about the company’s ability to pay.

We are astonished that the company has moved to make its accounts even more opaque and less relevant when long-suffering staff deserve far better. As it is, missing the formal deadline to file the accounts by four months has cost the company thousands in fines – money that is desperately needed to invest in starved editorial resources.

The chief executive’s pay is incredibly high given the significantly smaller scale of the group and the huge amount of additional share options flowing his way. I’m sure the many journalists in the north of England and elsewhere in the country, whose jobs were destroyed when the work moved to Newport subbing hub, would have seriously considered moving if they had been given the relocation allowance of £47,000 made available to the chief executive.

 

Brent voluntary organisations face crisis as NHS Estate's Market Rent policy is implemented

The NHS Estates programme is scheduled to be completed by June 2017, according to their website which will mean 6 or 7 Brent voluntary organisations providing back-up health services will be faced with paying market rents from April 2017.

Many will not be able to afford them and will be faced with finding new bases despite the Sustainability and Transformation Plan being based on collaboration enhanced by location in the same premises.

At a previous Scrutiny Meeting, it was reported that The Willesden Centre for Health and Care (with its PFI legacy) was "presenting a particular challenge" but the Brent CCG also reported "that plans were in place" to sort it out.  The CCG agreed to "detail in its commissioning intentions how it will use the Estates strategy to support and enable the voluntary sector" (Agenda item 5, NHS  Estate in Brent, 23/11/16.)

Brent Advocacy Concerns, one of the voluntary organisations affected, has approached Brent Healthwatch and Brent CVS for assistance, so far without success. 

Assurances had been given when I raised the issue previously that assistance would be given to voluntary organisation to enable them to be part of contracted services. access grants to enable them to be able to pay market rents, improve their financial viability or to share sessional space at centres.  So far none of these options have resulted in concrete proposals.

Brent Advocacy Concern meet tomorrow lunchtime with the shadow of closure hanging over them with little information on which to plan their future.

Dawn Butler joins Tulip Siddiq in voting against Article 50 and resigns shadow post

Dawn Butler  MP (Brent Central) yesterday joined the 47 Labour rebels who voted against the Article 50 Bill and resigned her position as Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities. She joined Tulip Siddiq  MP (Hampstead and Kilburn) in the No lobby. Brent residents had all three of their MPs in Corbyn's shadow team until the resignations, now only Barry Gardiner remains. Butler's vote followed her meeting with residents at Moore Spice in Wembley Park on Tuesday evening.

Butler tweeted:

Been an honour to serve in shadow cabinet doing a job I love. Can’t let down future generations voting against poor excuse of a bill.

In a statement to constituents Butler said:

In recent weeks I have been contacted by many constituents who have expressed their views with regards to the UK leaving the European Union.

I have heard passionate examples from both sides of the argument and since the High Court ruling last week, where it was clarified that Parliament must give its approval before official talks begin on exiting the European Union, the volume of correspondence to my office has increased.

I feel therefore, it is important I explain my position on this significant matter.

Having served as a delegate on the European Council I have seen first-hand just how important close working relationships are with our European neighbours.  I campaigned passionately to remain in the EU and was disappointed with the outcome of the referendum last year.

However, I respect the decision of the country and as a democrat I do not think that we should be campaigning for another in out referendum. I also respect my colleagues, constituents and the country as a whole and the debate from both sides.

The Labour Party is split on this issue because as a party we seek to represent the views of the whole country- not the 48% or the 52% - but the entirety. As we know, the country are also split on this matter.

Despite this, it is palpably clear that the Labour Party is united on fundamental issues that face our country and we will unite; as you have said many times, around the important issues of jobs, health, security, economy, rights and social justice.

I have made clear on many occasions that if I were given a vote in Parliament, I would vote to remain in the EU. I am proud to represent Brent Central and I am proud that we voted to overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and will vote to reflect the views of my constituency who elected me to be their voice in parliament.

I do not have confidence in Theresa May to negotiate the best deal for the UK.

I place my confidence and trust in Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, as well as Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry and the whole Shadow Brexit team to hold the government to account every step of the way and I will support Labours amendments as they hold the Government to account.

I understand and appreciate the logic of allowing a second reading in order that amendments can be discussed at third reading and voted on at committee stage - amendments that will hopefully ensure:

• Tariff-free access to the Single Market to protect jobs and our economy
• The protection of social and environmental rights,
• Security for EU citizens currently living in the UK
• A meaningful vote at the relevant stage of the negotiations

Jeremy Corbyn has successfully moved the Government from their position of ‘Brexit means Brexit’ to one that has seen them agree to bring forward a white paper for parliament to properly scrutinise.

However due to my lack of confidence in Theresa May, I have decided that I cannot in good conscience vote for something that I believe will make my constituents worse off.

It is with all of this in mind that I am informing you of my decision to vote against second and third reading.

My position is clear and has not changed since the referendum last year, however I will continue to engage with colleagues and constituents on this hugely important matter. This has been a difficult process which has invoked strong reactions from people on both sides of this debate and it is very important that we heal the division that has resulted from this debate.

Warm regards,

Dawn

Local Labour activist Graham Durham reacted angrily on Facebook this morning:

I feel very let down by my Labour MP Dawn Butler today..she has completely failed to consult local Party members (including any CLP officers and Executive members) before deciding to resign from the Shadow Cabinet and defy the instruction to vote for Article 50 thus adding to the attempts by the PLP rebels (the usual right wingers) to undermine Jeremy. Worse she called a public meeting, packed with Lib Dems, to which many Labour members were unable to gain access to announce her decision. When will Labour MPs realise that they only have the honour of being an MP because their local Labour Party chose them over many other good candidates and worked for them and that they have no right to pander to the voices of opposition parties who seek to destroy our Party?

Fellow activist Michael Calderbank tweeted: 

I respect @DawnButlerBrent and @RachaelMaskell but think they made the wrong call. Labour MPs have to respect how people voted.

Calderbank praised Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) for his 'mature and responsible view' which  had set out on the eve of the vote:

When Theresa May became Prime Minister after the referendum she made it clear that she would not give “a running commentary” on Brexit. The Labour Party demanded parliamentary scrutiny, a white paper, a vote to trigger article 50 and a parliamentary vote on the final deal after it is negotiated. The new Prime Minister refused them all.

The Labour Party in the House of Commons, and the Judiciary through the courts have now secured all these vital elements of democratic accountability.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the referendum vote determined that the UK would leave the European Union; but that it was for Parliament to determine how it should leave. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Although I voted and campaigned to remain, I am first and foremost a democrat. That means that I acknowledge that I lost the referendum vote. That means that I abide by its result even though I disagree with it. But I also agree with the Supreme Court that I must now as a Member of Parliament try to shape how we leave the EU in the best interests of the British people. That is why Labour has tabled a number of key amendments to the Bill.

64% of Labour voters across the country voted to Remain. But the majority of Labour MPs serve constituencies that voted by a majority to leave. The Labour Party is therefore presented both with a conflict of interests and a conflict of principles like no other party. In many ways we are much more representative of the divisions in the country over Brexit than any other political party. My view is that we must resolve the conflicts of principle and leave the conflicts of electoral interest to resolve themselves.

It is a uniquely valuable principle of our democracy that MPs have a special duty of care towards their constituents. We hold surgeries to deal with their individual problems and we represent them to various bodies and authorities to demand their rights. But our duty to represent our constituents does not in my view allow us to undermine the principle of democracy as a whole. I have enormous sympathy with all those of my colleagues who have wrestled with their conscience between the principle of democracy and the principle of representing their constituents but I am clear that I will respect the referendum result however much I disagree with it; and then I will try to mitigate its effects to secure the red lines that I and all my colleagues believe are so important.

Only by voting at 2^nd Reading to trigger Article 50 do we move to the position where we can amend the bill and hold the Government to account to ensure: Tariff-free access to the Single Market to protect jobs and our economy, the protection of social and environmental rights, security for EU citizens currently living in the UK and a meaningful vote at a stage of the negotiations where it is still possible to change the outcome. Triggering Article 50 is only the beginning of a long process. We must and will hold the government to account every step of the way and secure an outcome that may not entirely satisfy either the 48% or the 52% but that is acceptable to the 100%. That is how democracy functions.

Finally I would ask everyone to reflect on how they would have felt if their side had won the referendum, but parliament had set aside the result and done the opposite. The anger that would be generated if politicians ignored the outcome would be immense and justified. I believe that leaving the EU will make us poorer. But undermining our own democracy would make us much poorer still.

Tulip Siddiq was backed by her local Labour Party GC:

Great GC last night. Our local party showed solid support for, & no dissent from, @TulipSiddiq's principled stand on #Article50 #ThanksTulip

Caroline Lucas, Green MP, praised the Labour rebels on Twitter:

Big respect for the Labour MPs who voted against their party whip - they'll be proved to be on the right side of history.

Kevin Courtney's letter to NUT members on Trump protests

Dear colleagues,

As you will be aware many of our members have joined the protests around the country against Donald Trump’s executive order banning entry to the US from seven countries which have a majority Muslim population.

They will have joined those demonstrations as individuals but also as teachers they will be acutely concerned about the message this action sends to the young people they see every day.

I accepted an invitation to speak at the demonstration outside Downing Street on Monday and have also accepted an invitation to speak at the demonstration in London on Saturday. I have also signed the petition and a letter to the Guardian calling for the invitation of a state visit to be withdrawn.

I believe that Donald Trump’s actions will upset many of the children and families our members serve and have an impact on communities all over the country. I therefore strongly believe that, we must speak out – I do not believe that silence is an option.

When I spoke at Downing Street I said I was representing the biggest teachers union in Europe and wanted to explain why teachers should be involved. I said Trump was no ordinary bad politician – his policies aren’t bad immigration policies and misguided anti-terror policies. Instead his policies are aimed at stoking fear and division.

And it won’t just be migrants from some countries affected. That fear and division will come to every school and every community; so every person of good will needs to speak out. Every teacher needs to be involved – for the sake of our children.

I hope that you will support my decisions with regard to the protests and that you will support any protests that may be happening locally and encourage members to attend.

With best wishes,
Kevin Courtney,
NUT General Secretary