Global Human Rights Day: Open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

 On global Human Rights Day, 75+ groups from across the UK issue an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

On the 75^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) have coordinated an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders signed by 75+ organisations from across the UK.

Published on 10^th December 2023, global Human Rights Day, the letter highlights the United Nations’ call for a “movement of shared humanity” - a sentiment reflected by the breadth of organisations that have signed it. Grassroots groups, local charities, international organisations, professional bodies, advocates and lawyers all working in different fields and for different causes have come together to call on the UK Government to reaffirm the commitment to universal human rights, honouring the fundamental principle that human rights are for everyone.

As well as celebrating the incredible mobilisation of civil society to speak up against the UK Government’s unprincipled and unworkable Rights Removal Bill, which was ultimately scrapped this year, the letter highlights the impact that human rights have in the “small places close to home” – a phrase coined by UDHR architect Eleanor Roosevelt. It reflects on the role of the UDHR in inspiring the European Convention on Human Rights and ultimately the UK’s own Human Rights Act.

Together, the organisations tell politicians, “Anchored by common fundamental values that reach beyond divides, the UDHR makes it clear that universal human rights are part of what it means to be human, and not gifts granted by the state.”

Speaking on the release of the open letter, BIHR’s CEO, Sanchita Hosali, said:

Global Human Rights Day should be a time for us all in the UK to reflect on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed across nations in the aftermath of World War II 75 years ago to protect the equal dignity of each of us. Whether in our schools or workplaces, in community centres or housing offices, at police stations and courts, in hospitals and care homes, social work departments and Government offices, our universal human rights, shared by each and every one of us should be respected and protected by those in power.”

Sadly, here at home political debate is characterised by hostility to people’s human rights and a government intent on removing its accountability to us all. Having seen off the very real risk from the Government to scrap our Human Rights Act in favour of a Rights Removal Bill, groups from across the UK have joined together to call on our Prime Minister and political leaders to do better. Yet just days ago we see the Government seeking to set down in law the removal of human rights protections for a whole group of people seeking safety in it’s latest Rwanda Bill. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, the Government must move beyond the popularist, often dog whistle politicking around human rights, and commit to realising the vision of universal human rights as a global blueprint for international, national, and local laws and policies.

The letter:

Barham Park accounts, Council tax on empty and second homes, Vale Farm contract - decisions coming soon

 The Brent Forward Plan gives a note but no details on decisions to be made in the near future.

Coming up in 2024:

Reconsider the accounts of Barham Park Trust 2022-2023

 

To reconsider, following their reference back by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee under the call-in process, the accounts for the Barham Park Trust 2022-23.

 

 24 Jan 2024 by Barham Park Trust Committee 

 

Lead member: Leader

Lead director: Corporate Director of Finance & Resources

 

Council Tax - Empty and Second Homes Premium 

 To consider a recommendation to charge 100% on empty homes from one year, rather than two years as at present, and to provide 12 months’ notice of the Council’s intention to charge a premium of 100% on Second Homes from 1 April 2025.

 

5^th February Cabinet

 

Vale Farm Leisure Centre Procurement Options 

to consider the various methods of providing the Leisure Centre facilities from 2025 onwards and agree on a method of service provision. 

 

8^th April 2024 Cabinet

 

Vale Farm Swimming Pool closed while a gas leak is repaired

The swimming pool at Vale Farm is currently closed. This is because of a local gas leak; which has meant that the supply to the leisure centre has had to be temporarily halted whilst Cadent repair the pipe.

 

The centre are contacting all who have booked to use the pool and making them aware of alternate local facilities. As soon as Cadent have repaired the leak; the pool will be able to open again. The rest of the centre remains open for use. 

 

Chalkhill Christmas Celebration Saturday 9th 12 - 4pm

 

BIG UP HARLESDEN Saturday 12 noon - 4pm, Tavistock Hall, Harlesden

 

A 'One Love' community event.

EVENTBRITE BOOKING

Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I’ve already written about the Morland Gardens parts of the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to next week’s (11 December 2023) Cabinet meeting, and Martin has also posted a blog about the temporary accommodation proposals in its South Kilburn section. In this article I will cover some of the other points that caught my eye from that report.

 

I am not seeking to underestimate the “challenges” which the Council faces over meeting current housing needs, particularly over the shortage of Central Government funding, rising construction costs and higher interest rates since the disastrous mini-budget during the short-lived Truss premiership. Brent has aimed to do more over housing than many other London Councils, and the recommendations in this report include to ‘approve the use of usable Capital reserves to fund’ the New Council Homes Programme (“NCHP”), and to provide extra resources to tackle the current temporary accommodation crisis. 

 

A recent feature of such reports is a “Cabinet Member Foreword” (though whether these are written by the Lead Members, or for them by a Council Officer, is unclear). I was struck by these words from this Foreword’s para. 3.5: ‘this report emphasises the importance of being open and transparent with all ….’ I agree that openness and transparency are very important, but does this report deliver on those words?

 

In the report, are the Council being honest about what they have achieved so far? The Cabinet Member for Housing says: ‘we are on track to meet our target of 5,000 homes by 2028’. When the NCHP target was first launched five years ago, the aim was 5,000 affordable homes built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council set itself ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’ So, they’ve missed that target, and replaced it with another!

 

 

Table 1 in the report (above), which should be accurate because the “numbers” have been “cleansed”, shows that 3,901 affordable homes will have been finished in the borough in the five years to March 2024 (although the “by tenure” column totals 3,943! - see my corrections in red). 812 of those are shown as delivered by Brent Council. But only 560 (those described as “General Needs”) of the new Council homes will be “genuinely affordable”, and of those 235 were for existing Council tenants being moved from older blocks due to be demolished. 

 

The affordable homes provided by RPs (Registered Providers of social housing, such as Housing Associations) make up 3,089 of the 3,901 total, but only 940 of those homes appear to be “genuinely affordable”. That is just over 30% of the total, with the rest being “intermediate” homes, such as shared ownership. Although most of these will have received planning consent before Brent’s Local Plan came into force in February 2022, that is the opposite of the tenure split for affordable housing which is now supposed to apply: 70% genuinely affordable and no more than 30% “intermediate” affordable housing.

 

More details about the types of “affordable housing” can be found in an article, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply, which I wrote after a previous Cabinet update in November 2022.

 

The report has a section headed “Schemes on site and in main works contract”, and there are two schemes in particular from this that I would draw attention to. The first of these is Watling Gardens, the Council’s positive publicity over the start of work on which was mentioned in another article on Brent’s Council housing in October.

 

 

While the report says that this scheme ‘is currently on track’, it would cost more than the £38.5m which Brent’s Cabinet approved as the contract award price in June 2022. Brent’s answer is to issue an instruction that the project must be “value engineered”. What does that mean? It means that it will still have to built as planned, but using some materials which are less expensive than those originally intended. Previous examples of “value engineering” which come to mind are the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in some public buildings during cost saving measures in the 1960s to 1980s, and the £300k “saved” by using cheaper cladding when Grenfell Tower was being refurbished!

 

The stage and TV drama, where all the words were taken directly from Inquiry transcripts!

 

I’m not trying to suggest that the cost saving at Watling Gardens would result in anything as life-threatening as Grenfell Tower, but in the interests of transparency the public, and particularly future residents of the development (including those whose homes were demolished with the promise of a replacement there), deserve to be told what cheaper materials will be used as part of this “value engineering”.

 

I have written about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone project on a number of occasions, including about the extra GLA funding it received, and about the 152 out of 250 homes on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue which Brent’s “developer partner” will get for private sale, rather than being Council homes for Brent people in housing need. The report now says there will be less than 250 homes, because of the need for extra staircases, as a result of fire safety changes following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

 

 

I’m pleased to see that Brent appears to have learned one lesson from Morland Gardens (the need to begin work before planning consent expires), but why has it taken nearly three years to get to this stage? However, the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!

 

You need to read to the end of the report, on page 21, to find out what it means by ‘the importance of being open and transparent’, which I quoted near the start of this article. It appears that, to Brent Council and its Cabinet, this is more to do with the messages it gives out, rather than a commitment to being genuinely open and transparent about everything:

 

 

In other words, it is the usual “spin” that Brent Council puts out, either only sharing “good news” stories (usually with the Leader and/or one of his Cabinet colleagues getting the credit for something positive) or giving the reasons (excuses?) for why they can’t do what they had originally promised to deliver.

Philip Grant

 

School students concerned that they are being silenced over the Middle East conflict

 Michaela School in Wembley has made an impact on some neighbouring Brent secondary schools which have taken up the 'strictest school' challenge.  There is currently a hot debate on the Next Door website about what constitutes bullying by adults, rather than strict discipline, at Wembley Technology College.

There is a new headteacher at Preston Manor High School whose approach is causing waves amongst students and parents. The current conflict in the Middle East has resulted in complaints that children are being disciplined over their support for the Palestinian cause.

One student said:

We see the bodies of children killed by Israel on the internet and want to speak out. The school is supposed to teach British Values. Isn't 'freedom of speech' supposed to be a British Value?  Isn't it our human right? We are being denied our freedom of speech.

Back in the 1970s and 80s teachers developed educational resources to address racism and sexism so that the issues could be discussed in a safe and open environment. A disciplinary approach with detention or exclusion punishments for views expressed was rejected as it tended to harden and polarise attitudes.

Controversial issues are tricky for teachers but surely it is an education establishment's job, whether school, college or university, to address the issue, rather than silence all discussion?

An article in the Guardian LINK  describes how students at a Luton 6th College are demanding lessons about the context of the conflict in Gaza.

The National Education Union has produced guidance for its members on the Israel/Gaza conflict LINK.

Meanwhile groups of school students across the country have been striking over Palestine and there is a rally at lunchtime today.

 

At the end of October the National Education Union issued a statement on the conflict:

Further to our statement on 14 October, the NEU is distressed and alarmed by the rising death toll of Palestinian civilians, particularly children, caused by Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Half of Gaza’s two million population are children and 40 per cent of all those killed in Gaza since 7 October are children. 

According to Save the Children, child fatalities in the besieged enclave since this date have surpassed the annual number of children killed across the world's conflict zones since 2019.

We call on the UK Government and wider international community to work for an immediate ceasefire and ongoing peace settlement that secures the release of Israeli hostages, ends the bombardment of Gaza, and restores the flow of vital humanitarian aid, including food, fuel and medical supplies into Gaza.  

More than 1.4 million people in Gaza have been internally displaced, with some 671,000 sheltering in 150 UNRWA facilities. We decry the attacks on UNWRA schools and hospitals and reiterate the call from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for “all parties to the conflict to take all precautions to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure [including] health workers, patients, health facilities and ambulances, and civilians who are sheltering in these facilities.”

The NEU is committed to challenging racism in all its forms, and we will continue to speak out against the alarming rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia that we are witnessing in the UK and elsewhere. Attacks on, or harassment of, Jewish or Muslim people are abhorrent and inexcusable. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their schools, colleges, places of worship and communities.

We encourage all NEU members to take peaceful action in support of calls for a ceasefire, including joining peaceful protests and contacting their members of parliament.

 A group called Teachers for Palestine has been formed and will be holding a solidarity vigil tomorrow:

 

The strong advice to any parent of a student who has faced expulsion/sanction for advocacy for Palestine is to get in touch with the European Legal Support Center as soon as possible where you will be asked to fill in an incident report. https://elsc.support/

It would be useful to hear about any local schools where a positive educational response has been taken.

Brent moves to remove 'Landlord Offer' from homeless moved into void properties on South Kilburn. Lettings Policy consultation will be required.

 

 

The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:

Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters. Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school and all but who are we to complain?

A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:

I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation. 

The fact that only 52  of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered. 

Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements.  LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:

There are currently 534 void properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.

However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):

Of the 534 voids, 52 have been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically, those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.

 

The rational[e] for the promise not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way those involved with the ballot.

This proposal does create a risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and work.  

 

There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:

 

 To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.

 

The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court.  LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?

 

This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration.   A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK

 

There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK

 

A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:

 

If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.

Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.

There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.

But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both  Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could  change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.

There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.

But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.

I wonder if Osbornes Law will be interested in the new proposals?