IMPORTANT: DON'T LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE! INFORMATION ON VOTER ID

 

The GLA has launched a non-party campaign to raise public knowledge on the VoterID now needed to vote in elections. There is concern that some residents, especially young people, may not have the necessary ID to vote, thus undermining democracy.

The GLA helped by other organisations have launched a Voter Registration Hub with much useful information including resources for teachers in high schools and colleges. I have included some of the resources here.  Go to  https://registertovote.london/home/voter-registration-landing-page/

 

British Sign Language Video 

 

Never take your right to vote for granted 

 

From the Chartists to the Suffragettes, the history of voting rights is littered with examples of people taking extremely brave actions to secure the vote.

 

From a group of Barons tracking down a king in a muddy marshland and forcing him to sign a piece of paper in 1215, to the eventual universal suffrage of all adults in the United Kingdom 713 years late, we must remember that the right to vote in this country wasn't always guaranteed, and gaining it never came easy.

 

The 1819 Peterloo Massacre saw 17 people killed for demanding the right to vote after cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000-80,000 protesters.

 

Chartism was a working class movement in Britain 1838-1857 that acted nationally, protesting and petitioning to demand voter suffrage.

 

The Suffragettes were a militant movement of women demanding the right to vote. They used radical action to secure this right, which led to members of the movement being imprisoned and even dying in the struggle.

 

Newland Court concerns now filed as a formal complaint to Brent Council of alleged systemic discrimination

Overflowing bins alongside boarded up garages that the Council intends to remove and build on

Marc Etukudo's struggle to get Brent Council to deal with problems at Newland Court, Wembley Park, have now resulted in his concerns being treated as formal complaint against the Council.  Note that the Council's infill proposals to demolish garages and build mini-houses on the site also involve reducing the number of bins.

This is the complaint:

RECYCLING BINS

The first issue is about our recycling bins. Now Brent Council has a habit of administering proposals and supposedly having consultation with any or all the residents affected about the proposal which is totally untrue. Brent Council actually only consulted with a fraction or a small percentage of the residents affected and then released a result that does not reflect the true figures of residents that are against the consultation if they were actually involved.

No one that I have spoken to at Newland Court received any consultation letter regarding having a trial by making recycling pickups from weekly to fortnightly. The first I or other residents found out about this was on social media where other residents in Brent were also asking if anyone was consulted about the 2 week recycling pickup trial and many were dumbfounded about it. I called Brent Council to find out why and was told that we were sent consultation letters which is untrue.

 

Now since this 2 weekly recycling trial pickup our bins are not being emptied fortnightly and even sometimes monthly so that our recycling bins are always overflowing and of course fed up residents are now putting the recycling waste into the residual waste which defeats the object of asking us to recycle our rubbish. When the residual waste is being emptied the bin men will sometimes take out only the bins in bags and leave the residual bins still half full. I have attached pictures for you to see and I hope you will address this issue.  

PARKING

We have had Wing Parking managing and controlling parking at Newland Court for a few years now and in late December last year I was told by a neighbour that when they renewed their Wing parking permit they were told that after the 10^th December2022 our parking permits would cease to be enforceable as Wing Parking would no longer be managing parking at Newland Court as their contract with Brent Council had ended.

I phoned Wing Parking and was told the same thing so I called Brent Council and was told that we were sent consultation letters regarding Wing Parking’s management at Newland Court which is untrue as I have spoken to several residents and none received any consultation letter from Brent. I have since found out that Brent Council said they consulted with all residents and are now doing a trial with 5 estates using Serco the security firm as their new source.

‘Systemic discrimination can be described as patterns of behaviour, procedures, routines, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization (Brent Council) and contributes to less favourable outcomes for minority groups (Brent Residents). Behaviours may include dismissive or derogatory comments, gossip, ignoring others, judgemental attitudes or isolating others.     

I have already accused Brent Council of Systemic Discrimination regarding other issues that Newland Court residents are facing in which I hope is being looked at as I am still waiting for a response to. So can you please find out why residents at Newland Court were never consulted regarding the 2 issues I have raised and what is going to happen at Newland Court now regarding non resident drivers who have now started parking as they like on our estate and even in between the garages preventing an elderly disabled driver from getting her car out of her garage on a couple of occasions. Also can our recycling bins be emptied????

Brent Council set to appoint Kim Wright, presently of Lewisham Council, Brent's new CEO

 Kim Wright

 

Kim Wright is set to become the new Chief Executive of Brent Council subject to ratification from Full Council on Monday January 23rd.

Brent’s Senior Staff Appointments Committee (Councillors M. Butt, M. Patel, Knight, Krupa Sheth and Kansagra) has recommended Kim for the Chief Executive role following what the Council called  'a rigorous and competitive recruitment process.'

Brent Council on its website announcement said:

Kim Wright has been Chief Executive of Lewisham Council since October 2019 where she led the council’s response to the global pandemic as well as being the lead Chief Executive for South East London as part of the resilience arrangements that were set up at the time. During Kim’s time at Lewisham the authority has been praised for its work supporting homeless people while the number of residents saying the council runs things well and provides value for money improved significantly. There were also improvements in staff satisfaction levels.

Before joining Lewisham, Kim held a number of Corporate Director roles at Hackney Council which all involved working as part of the senior leadership team to drive improvement and change. Before that Kim worked at Barnet Council and before that Spelthorne Borough Council where she started her local government career in leisure services.

Kim holds a number of pan London roles – as Chair of the London Recovery Board’s Tackling Structural Inequalities sub group; as co-Chair of the London local government Tackling Racial Inequality Group; and as Deputy Chair of London’s Local Resilience Forum, representing all 33 local authorities.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: "Kim is an outstanding Chief Executive with a fantastic range of abilities and skills that are just right for Brent. We have made lots of progress in Brent over recent years, despite the tough circumstances we have faced. I am keen to welcome Kim to Brent and continue that journey as we seek to build a better Brent and leave no one behind.”

Last year, Brent’s long-serving and highly respected Chief Executive Carolyn Downs announced her intention to retire in April 2023 after a hugely successful career in local and central government.

Kim is set to take up the role of Chief Executive from May 2023. She said: “I am delighted and excited to be recommended as Brent’s next Chief Executive as it is a fantastic place that is one of the UK’s most diverse boroughs, and which is bursting with opportunities. I know how ambitious everyone at Brent is to make a positive difference to local people’s lives. I am really looking forward to working closely with colleagues, members, partners, and residents to do everything we can to create a fairer and more equal borough.

“I’d also like to say what an honour it is to take over from Carolyn Downs who has been one of the most respected public sector chief executives in the country for decades. Carolyn has been an inspiration to so many people, including many women due to the glass ceilings she has broken, and I am determined to build on the impressive legacy she leaves.”

 

Nation-wide protests against forced prepayment meters - outright ban and removal demanded

 From Fuel Poverty Action

 

Today, Fuel Poverty Action and allied groups begin several days of protest against fuel poverty in the UK. An announcement from the group stated that:    ‘From Edinburgh to Exeter, we will join together with the National Pensioner’s Convention, Don’t Pay, Disabled People Against Cuts and Extinction Rebellion for vigils, warm-ups and digital actions.’    The date coincides with the Office for National Statistics announcing the excess winter death figures for 2021/22. Fuel Poverty Action and the National Pensioner’s Convention have historically protested around this annual event and will mark the day with events in London and Cardiff.   The groups are collectively demanding the UK government ban forced prepayment meters. The government has come under increasing pressure to take this measure since an investigation by the i paper revealed that energy companies have secured half a million warrants to enter people’s homes and install meters since July 2021. Further reports have uncovered that only 72 warrant applications in total were refused by magistrates. Citizens Advice also announced that 3.2 million people were disconnected due to being unable to top up prepayment meters in 2022, more than the previous 10 years combined. Grant Shapps has stated officials are ‘actively working’ on the issue but is yet to announce a concrete ban or moratorium. Ruth London, Fuel Poverty Action Co-Founder, said:   We need an outright ban, and urgent removal of the hundreds of thousands of meters that have been installed where they are not safe or practical in defiance of suppliers' licence conditions. The energy suppliers were quick to find men to drill out locks and break into homes to install these meters, now they must act quickly to take them out.  People are being left in the cold and dark even when they are dependent on heat or on power for disability aids, medical equipment, for light and for charging phones.  Every delay will lead to deaths.  In Westminster, attendees will gather at 11.30am to hear speeches before a minute's silence as Big Ben strikes 12 to commemorate those who have been killed by living in cold and damp homes. Speakers will include Lord Prem Sikka, Ruth London, Jan Shortt the NPC General Secretary, Paula Peters of DPAC and Simon Francis, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition Coordinator. The event will conclude with a short march and rally outside Downing Street. A similar event, organised by NPC Wales, will begin at 11am on the same date in Cardiff Central Square. Jan Shortt, General Secretary, the National Pensioners’ Convention said:     It’s shameful that anyone in this country should die as a result of the cold. Yet tens of thousands more will do so if the government does not act as a matter of urgency. We would cautiously welcome Business Secretary Grant Shapps’ announced intention to stop forced transfers to pre-payment meters, which is a step in the right direction.  But we will monitor just how successful that is and what his intentions would be for energy providers who ignore it. Further vigils will follow on Friday 20th January, as locals meet at Brighton War Memorial, Old Steine, at 10.30am. As well as on Saturday 21st, when gatherings will take place at Leicester Town Hall at 11am and a Shell garage on Newnham Road, Cambridge, at 12pm. Saturday 21st January will also mark the date for a next round of ‘Warm-Up’ protests, a form of direct action used by Fuel Poverty Action throughout its nearly 12 year history. Participants will enter public spaces or buildings to keep warm together due to unaffordable fuel bills and poor housing conditions at home. A similar day of action in December involved Warm-Ups in locations including Scottish Power HQ, the British Museum, Harrods and a Barclays Bank. Fuel Poverty Action have released a number of meeting points and say to expect more of the same. Actions will conclude on Sunday 22nd January with a demonstration taking place outside Octopus Energy Sales Hub in Birmingham. The groups are also calling on individuals to sign a petition calling for an end to forced prepayment meters and encouraging them to either phone or email Grant Shapps’ office demanding he implement a ban. The week of action forms part of Fuel Poverty Action’s Energy For All campaign; the demand for a universal, free amount of energy to cover people’s necessities like heating, lighting and cooking - paid for by an end to all public money subsidising fossil fuels, a more effective windfall tax on energy companies and higher tariffs on luxury household energy use. The campaign also encompasses an end to prepayment meters and a national retrofitting scheme to bring housing up to standard. Stuart Bretherton, Fuel Poverty Action, Energy For All Campaign Coordinator, said:   In the world’s sixth richest economy and one of Europe’s largest producers of oil and gas, failing to meet people’s basic energy needs is a political choice. Energy For All is a proposal for a system that works for people and the planet, not profiteers or polluters. The polar opposite of this is struggling people having their homes broken into, or meters switched remotely without warning, to a method of payment that could prevent them from heating their home this winter.   Visit https://www.fuelpovertyaction.org.uk/ to see all assembly points. Contact e4a@fuelpovertyaction.org.uk for questions and comments.

 

How can the 'You Decide' process for Council grants be made fairer?

 November's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which was also attended for two items by the Chair of Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny, was notable for the contribution of residents to the item on Brent Council's Grants Programme. Key points were made questioning the fairness of the 'You Decide' meetings that allocate grants including the packing of meetings by some groups and the disadvantage of not being used to public speaking.

The Committee also considered the Borough Plan with questions asked abou the lack of much mention of the council's climate emergency structure.

The Committee made a range of recommendations.

The Minutes of the meeting are now available so I have embedded them below for your perusal and as an example of effective scrutiny.

Dawn Butler on Minimum Service Levels Bill: ' It is dishonest; it is an insult to trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class; and it is an insult to Parliament and parliamentary procedures.'

This is the text of Dawn Butler's speech on the  'Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Bill delivered yesterday in Parliament.

 

A lot of time is spent in courts in some countries arguing about minimum service level agreements. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist: I worked for the GMB for more than a decade representing Members of Parliament, I am a member of Unite the union, and, after this debate, I might join a few more trade unions.

 

The Secretary of State took great joy in reading out how much hon. Members receive from trade unions, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, the cleanest money in politics. I wonder if, when he returns to his place, he will let the House know how much Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox have received in payments.

 

In the short time that I have, I will talk about the Bill. It is dishonest; it is an insult to trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class; and it is an insult to Parliament and parliamentary procedures. A lot of time is spent in courts in some countries arguing about minimum service level agreements. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud trade unionist: I worked for the GMB for more than a decade representing Members of Parliament, I am a member of Unite the union, and, after this debate, I might join a few more trade unions.

 

The Secretary of State took great joy in reading out how much hon. Members receive from trade unions, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said, the cleanest money in politics. I wonder if, when he returns to his place, he will let the House know how much Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox have received in payments.

 

In the short time that I have, I will talk about the Bill. It is dishonest; it is an insult to trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class; and it is an insult to Parliament and parliamentary procedures. Most of  the detail of the Bill is missing and the Government have said that they will add it later—that is not how we are supposed to do politics or make legislation. It contains wide, prospective Henry VIII powers, and as we saw during the pandemic, if we give the Government such powers, they abuse them—but they are putting them in legislation. It allows the Government to amend and revoke any future legislation passed in this Session, so what is the point of Parliament? No matter what we say or pass, the Government can turn around and say, “We want to change it,” or, “We want to revoke it.” That is against what every single Member of Parliament has been elected to do.

 

Ministers are trying to have power over Parliament—that is all the Bill is about—and to encourage employers to have power over workers. When I was a trade union official, it said on our office wall, “To make rich people work harder, they pay them more. To make poor people work harder, they try to pay them less.” Safety does not appear anywhere in the Bill. 

 

The House of Lords debated a report, “Democracy Denied?”, which said that we must rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive. The Government are asking Parliament to vote on a Bill that does not really exist, because there is no detail.

 

If the Government are serious about having minimum service levels, and if they are serious about negotiating, which nobody in the Government seems able to do, they should agree to compulsory arbitration or mediation to resolve disputes, but they are not interested in that. They are interested in trying to paint trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class, in one light and themselves in another.

 

I say to the Government, however, that the public are not stupid and they see what the Government are doing by trying to take away their rights at every single level, including the right to protest and the right to vote. We see what the Government are doing and we will stand up and stop them at every opportunity.

 

Most of the detail of the Bill is missing and the Government have said that they will add it later—that is not how we are supposed to do politics or make legislation. It contains wide, prospective Henry VIII powers, and as we saw during the pandemic, if we give the Government such powers, they abuse them—but they are putting them in legislation. It allows the Government to amend and revoke any future legislation passed in this Session, so what is the point of Parliament? No matter what we say or pass, the Government can turn around and say, “We want to change it,” or, “We want to revoke it.” That is against what every single Member of Parliament has been elected to do.

 

Ministers are trying to have power over Parliament—that is all the Bill is about—and to encourage employers to have power over workers. When I was a trade union official, it said on our office wall, “To make rich people work harder, they pay them more. To make poor people work harder, they try to pay them less.” Safety does not appear anywhere in the Bill.

 

The House of Lords debated a report, “Democracy Denied?”, which said that we must rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive. The Government are asking Parliament to vote on a Bill that does not really exist, because there is no detail.

 

If the Government are serious about having minimum service levels, and if they are serious about negotiating, which nobody in the Government seems able to do, they should agree to compulsory arbitration or mediation to resolve disputes, but they are not interested in that. They are interested in trying to paint trade unions, which are the aspirational vehicle of the working class, in one light and themselves in another.

 

I say to the Government, however, that the public are not stupid and they see what the Government are doing by trying to take away their rights at every single level, including the right to protest and the right to vote. We see what the Government are doing and we will stand up and stop them at every opportunity.

 

Brent Fights Back organising meeting January 18th 7pm in-person and on zoom

 

Brent Fights Back will be holding an organising meeting on 18th January at 7pm to discuss how we can share information and support local activity across the borough led by different Brent Campaigns. The meeting will be held at BBMC, 386 High Road, London NW10 2JR

If you are interested in coming (it will be in person and on zoom) and would like to be kept informed of local activities, please email

Pete Firmin at petefirmin@btinternet.com.

The zoom link for the meeting is:

https://us04web.zoom.us/j/74994912332?pwd=hpRfNzbneb82LauaplxdJOcHIrvqsZ.1

Meeting ID: 749 9491 2332

Passcode: 4mHfmn

Barry Gardiner lambasts the government's Minimum Service Levels Bill

When I was young newspapers used to publish long account of parliamentary speeches but this has long ceased to happen, instead we have the BBC Parliamentary Channel that few watch, except on special key or theatrical occasions.

I think it is worthwhile to publish in full Barry Gardiner's speech on government proposals to impose minimum service levels on strking public service workers.  He pinpoints the weaknesses and dangers in the proposed legislation.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud union member.

The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill. However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the Union.

The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny in this place and cannot be amended. So it is the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to

“amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under primary legislation” in this House. So statutes passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:

“A substantial groundswell of concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”

This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area of employment and human rights.

It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation better guaranteed to do so.

That the Secretary of State in Whitehall should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.

I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal protection.

The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:

“No court shall…compel an employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”

However, once the union is notified of the identity of the workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to discipline or expel— (cut off by Speaker).