Comments invited on Old Oak-Park Royal Regeneration community involvement proposals

 

The OPDC boundaries

This is a message I have received from Old Oak and Park Royal Development  Corporation (OPDC). 

 Dear All,

Please find attached the first e-newsletter from OPDC – this will evolve over time and the aim is to keep local businesses, residents and groups up to date with latest information about Old Oak and Park Royal proposals as well as highlight opportunities to get involved in shaping the development. Please help us to make it useful and tell us what you would like to see featured.

Also, our draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) is now out for consultation along with our draft Community Charter. The SCI aims to set out how stakeholders will be involved in the planning process and the Community Charter sets out how OPDC’s commitment to community engagement in all aspects of the regeneration in Old Oak and Park Royal.

We would like your comments on these documents, please follow the link to find out how to get involved in the consultation on the draft Statement of Community Involvement and draft Community Charter.

Kind Regards,

Alex Day
OPDC

Tory heartlessness: Deaths of claimants after being declared 'fit for work'

The statistical basis of this story has provoked discussion (see below)  but the real issue is the heartlessness of government policy.

Statement from DPAC (Disabled People Against Cuts)

DWP has at last published the mortality statistics for the ESA group. It will take time to analyse them, but what they show is that the WCA is not fit for purpose.  2500 people have died after being found fit for work. Another 7,200 people died after being placed in the WRAG, the group for disabled people who can do ‘some work’, another 7540 died waiting to be assessed

But these figures do not tell the whole story. They ignore the suffering of disabled people who survived, being found fit for work but unable to claim JSA because they cannot meet the conditionality of the benefit. The suffering of 3000 disabled people sanctioned every month, and who cannot compensate for their loss of income, because they were found unfit to work, and they are.

The suffering and the humiliation of disabled people who have to prove their impairment/long term health issues over and over again to DWP staff who don’t believe them. The suffering of disabled people being portrayed as scroungers by the media. This suffering cannot be captured by statistics.
Under the last Labour government, the aim was to force 1 million disabled people out of benefits and into work. Almost 10 years later, the aim is the same, while in a meantime a Coalition minister recognised that people on disability benefits were ‘sicker’ than they thought.

And those in the middle group, who would expect before too long to be mandated to the Work Programme, have proved to be sicker and further from the workplace than we expected. So it will take far more time than we predicted for them to be ready to make a return to work

This has not changed. Some people will never get better and need long term support. To pretend that they can do ‘some work’ is disingenuous, as no employer is prepared to offer ‘some work’ to disabled people.

People died because of the welfare reforms, but others suffered and still suffer. Let’s not forget any of them

Truth or Cover Up? Brondesbury Park Conservatives table motion calling for independent inquiry into Clarke-Davani case

Brondesbury Park  Conservative ward councillors have tabled the following motion for the full Brent Council Meeting to be held on September 7th 2015:

This Council agrees to an independent inquiry into all aspects of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case.

This Council agrees that the inquiry shall commence at the conclusion of the Tribunal remedy hearing. We further agree that the inquiry costs shall be funded from reserves ,and that the new Chief Executive shall be charged with setting up the inquiry panel.

The new Chief Executive will have overall responsibility for setting the terms of reference, but this Council agrees that the following questions will be included in the terms of reference...........

1. What was the rationale behind the Council initially bringing disciplinary action against M/ s Clarke.... and was it fair and reasonable?

2.Why did the Council pursue this matter so vigorously through the Tribunal ......and was it fair and reasonable?

3. What part ,if any, did this case figure in the departure of Fiona Ledden from Brent?

4.What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Cara Davani from Brent?

5. What were the financial arrangements behind Ms Davani ‘s departure from Brent, including any Brent  indemnity given to Ms Davani in respect of Tribunal costs awarded against her personally?

6. What part, if any, did this case figure in the departure of Christine Gilbert from Brent?

7. What part did Cllr. Butt play in this case throughout its course?

8. What were the total costs in this case.......and was it a fair and reasonable way to spend Council taxpayer monies?

This Council believes this  is an important independent inquiry, and that both Brent Council staff and Brent residents would support such an inquiry

Cara Davani - will Brent's Full Council meeting be allowed to hear the "two questions", and get the answers?

A guest blog by Philip Grant.

The saga of my “two questions” to Brent’s interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, over a probable “pay off” to Cara Davani, continues. See LINK for the back story. Despite my email reply on 13 August to the latest “response” from Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, on behalf of Ms Gilbert, I have heard nothing further from either of them. I had sent a short “reminder” to both officers on 20 August, including the following:

‘I am sure that you realise that there is no valid reason why Ms Gilbert should not answer the two questions I first put to her six weeks ago. Her continued reluctance to give those simple “yes” or “no” answers, and to explain the justification for any such “pay off” to Cara Davani if either or both of the answers is “no”, can only fuel speculation that she is trying to conceal some impropriety.

It would be unfair of Ms Gilbert to leave this matter unresolved, so that her successor, Carolyn Downs, has to “pick up the pieces” when she takes up the post of Brent’s Chief Executive on 7 September. It needs to be dealt with now.’

If they thought that my “two questions” would go away if they simply ignored them, they were mistaken (although Ms Gilbert will be leaving Brent shortly, so perhaps she doesn’t care that someone else will have to deal with the problem she has created). In the interests of transparency, here is the full text of an email which I sent to the Chief Legal Officer at around 7pm on Wednesday 26 August, headed 

“Notice under Standing Order 39 - Deputation for Full Council meeting on 7 September 2015”. 

Why did I send it so soon? A person wishing to make a Deputation to a Full Council meeting has to give written notice ‘not less than 5 days before the date of the meeting’. The date of the meeting is Monday 7 September (at 7pm), but the deadline for giving notices under Standing Order 39 is midday on Thursday 27 August. Under Brent’s rules, you can't count five days on the fingers of one hand!

Text of Full Council deputation email to Fiona Alderman on 26 August:

Dear Ms Alderman,

I am writing to give notice under Standing Order 39 that I wish to make a Deputation to Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 7 September 2015. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice, and let me know how many other such notices, if any, have been received within the time limit for that meeting.

The title of my Deputation is “The importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out the functions of Brent Council”, and a summary of its content is as follows:

·      A welcome to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, and reminder of the importance of that position in setting an example of the highest standards of conduct.
·      Expressing a feeling that conduct at senior levels in the Civic Centre may have slipped below the high standards expected in recent years.
·      Cite one recent example where proper accountability and openness does not appear to have been shown by Ms Down’s predecessor, namely serious concerns raised from 12 June 2015 onwards over a possible “pay off” to the former Director of HR, which have not yet been resolved.
·      Repeat the two questions which were first put to the interim Chief Executive on 9 July, and are still unanswered, despite reminders, and requests from two Conservative group leaders and a number of individual Labour councillors.
·      Explain why it is important that these questions should be answered, and why any “no” answer needs to be backed up with an explanation of why any decision to make a “pay off” was considered to be justified.
·      Remind all councillors of their duty to satisfy themselves that any such “pay off” is not a misuse of Council funds.
·      Encourage councillors and officers to make answering the two questions the first step in a return to high standards of conduct under our new Chief Executive. 

I am aware that Standing Order 39 sets out a number of conditions which must be met before a request to make a Deputation to Full Council can be accepted.

Under 39(a), I can confirm that I am a ‘member of the public’ (a Brent resident and rate/Council Tax payer at the same address in Fryent Ward since 1983). Although I have requested to be allowed to present deputations to the Council and Scrutiny Committee during the past six months, I have not actually ‘made’ any such deputations, and my subject is not a repetition of a subject on which a deputation has been ‘made’.

Under 39(b):-
i.         My Deputation directly concerns a matter affecting the borough (resolving serious concerns raised by residents over a possible “pay off” to a former Brent employee) and relates to a Council function (the way in which Council officers, Full Council and its committees, deal with concerns raised over possible misuse of Council funds).

ii.         Although the second of my two questions includes the words ‘any Employment Tribunal or other legal proceedings’, my Deputation does not ‘relate to legal proceedings’. I will not mention any proceedings by name, or name the claimant in the particular Employment Tribunal case (where the judgement is already final) that has given rise to my interest in this matter. Nothing in my Deputation will have any effect on how the Tribunal decides its remedy hearing, only on whether Brent Council will respect and accept that decision after it is made.

iii.         My Deputation does not relate to a matter which is, or has been, the subject of a complaint under the Council’s complaints processes. 

iv.         My Deputation is not, and will not be, ‘frivolous, vexatious, or defamatory’. I have made every effort to get serious concerns, which I first raised two and a half months ago, settled by direct requests for information and answers, backed up by reasoned argument. As senior officers of the Council have, so far, failed to resolve those concerns, I am seeking to use a right given to Brent’s citizens under its Constitution to bring the matter before Full Council, and use it as an example to support the new Chief Executive in promoting high standards of conduct at Brent Council.
I believe that my Deputation meets the conditions set out by (a) and (b) of Standing Order 39, but there is one further proviso at (b):

‘The Chief Legal Officer shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any other reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.’

That proviso gives you great power, but before you exercise that power I would ask you to consider the following points:-

a.    Deputations were introduced in changes to Brent’s Constitution approved by Full Council in June 2014. In commenting publicly on this provision at the time:
‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘ [”Brent & Kilburn Times”, 12 June 2014]

b.    Two of the seven “purposes” of Brent’s Constitution, set out at Article 1.4 (in Part 2) are:
‘create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to public account;’
and
‘ensure that those responsible for decision making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they explain the reasons for decisions.’

c.     Article 1.5 of the Constitution states:
‘Where this Constitution permits the Council to choose between different courses of action, the Council will always choose that option which it thinks is closest to the purposes stated above.’

d.    Standing Order 39 is part of Brent’s Constitution (in Part 3), so that in exercising your discretion between allowing my Deputation to be heard, or deciding that it ‘cannot proceed’, I believe you should choose the option which ‘is closest to the purposes stated above’. (See b. above)

e.    As Monitoring Officer, you have a constitutional role in ‘the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct’ at Brent Council (Article 13.5). One of the aims of my Deputation is to assist in promoting high standards of conduct, and to encourage others to do the same as part of a “fresh start” under Brent’s new Chief Executive.

f.      For all of these reasons, I believe it would be inappropriate if you were to use your discretion to decide to prevent my Deputation being presented to Full Council on 7 September.

I look forward to receiving your confirmation that I can make my Deputation to Brent’s Full Council meeting on Monday 7 September.

I am copying this email to Lorraine King, news editor of the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, who will be interested to see how Cllr. Butt’s promise of allowing residents “to hold the Council to account” works in practice, and to Martin Francis, whose “Wembley Matters” online blog has championed transparency over the concerns I have raised, and whose readers have supported my efforts to get answers to my “two questions”.

Best wishes,
Philip Grant.

Labour leadership contenders' stance on environmental policies

Environmentally conscious Labour readers of this blog may be interested in the candidates' answers to questions put by Friends of the Earth. Below I republish the original FOE blog that can be found HERE
 

We asked the Labour leadership candidates to tell us where they stand on green issues. Here is what they said (or didn’t say).

Two weeks ago we wrote about the scale of the Government’s destruction of green policies and the urgent need for strong opposition to these changes from the Labour party.

We also set out 10 key environmental policies we think Ed Miliband’s successor must adopt, in order to hold the Government to account on crucial issues like climate change and the depletion of the natural world.

We sent these policies to the four contenders for the Labour Leadership and asked them to get back to us with their responses.

What the Labour leadership contenders think

Despite extending the deadline (twice) and repeated private and public reminders (here and here for instance), we didn’t hear a peep from two of the candidates, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. (But see note at the end of the article)

Andy Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn did get back to us, but with varying degrees of detail.

Andy Burnham's team provided us with this statement and an accompanying email explaining that many of the “quite detailed” policy positions we put to him “will be subject to the policy review that will take place leading up to the 2020 [general] election”.

The statement makes clear that under Mr Burnham’s leadership “environmental issues will be treated with new energy and will be given a prominent place in what will define the Labour Party” but provides little in the way of detail.

The clearest policy position in Mr Burnham’s statement is that “no fracking should go ahead until we have much clearer evidence on the environmental impact”. This is a welcome commitment, although short of the necessary pledge to oppose fracking full stop because of the unacceptable risks it presents to tackling climate change.

Jeremy Corbyn was the only one of the four candidates who replied in full to our specific asks.

The responses include a commitment to “take action now to keep fossil fuels in the ground” and “end dirty energy handouts, ban fracking and set a target date to end new fossil fuel extraction, and begin to phase out high polluting coal power stations with support for workers to re-train”.

Mr Corbyn said he would “call for unabated coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, to be phased out by 2023” and in a welcome move confirmed that “I am opposed to opencast coal mining which scars our landscape, and disrupts local communities with noise and air pollution.”

+++ UPDATE 24 August: Yvette Cooper gave a speech over the weekend outlining her "six point roadmap" on climate change ahead of the Paris summit at the end of the year. Read our take on it here. +++

Green Party demands halt Work Capability Assessments immediately following deaths of those deemed 'fit to work'

Green Party work and pensions spokesperson Jonathan Bartley has demanded an ‘immediate halt’ to the government’s Work Capability Assessments for those claiming Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance.

His call comes in response to figures released today by the Department for Work and Pensions that show 81,140 people claiming ESA, IB or SDA died between December 2011 and February 2014. Of those, 4,010 (4.94%) had been deemed ‘fit for work’ following their WCA.

Meanwhile, of the 50,580 people who died while claiming ESA during the same period, 7,200 (14%) were placed in a work-related activity group designed to help prepare them for work.

 

Bartley said:

There should be an immediate halt to the Work Capability Assessment. It is now clear that tens of thousands have died within a year of being put through it, with thousands of these people placed in work-related activity groups or certified as ‘fit for work’. These decisions are inhumane and this mortality rate is a national scandal.

These tragic statistics expose the fundamental flaw in the government’s approach to the sick and disabled. It is unacceptable that a massive 14% of those who died within a year of their WCA were forced into a work-related activity group, and almost one in 20 were deemed ‘fit for work’, meaning they were forced to spend their final months seeking or preparing for employment.

The government needs to stop treating the sick and disabled as ‘scroungers’ out to rob the state, and instead apply some humanity and provide these people with the care and support they need.” 

SELL-OFF film about the transformation of the NHS into a business ready for corporate takeover - Tonight 7pm

Your NHS has been quietly transformed into a business ready for corporate takeover and conversion to the American private insurance model. In 'Sell-Off', filmmaker Peter Bach exposes the two decade covert privatisation which has occurred without public mandate and against the public interest. It challenges the lies put out by politicians and mainstream media.

Join us at IHRC for a screening of 'Sell-Off'

WHEN: Wednesday, 26 August from 7-9pm

WHERE: IHRC Bookshop & Gallery, 202 Preston Road, Wembley, HA9 8PA (Nearest tube: Preston Road / Metropolitan Line)

Refreshments will be provided. Call 020 8904 4222

Peter Bach's powerful new film, "Sell-Off" maps out the steady privatisation of the National Health Service which is going on right now. Nobody listening to the evidence of a range of practitioners on the film can be in any doubt that this coalition government has accelerated the process of outsourcing of NHS services started by the Blair government, using the vehicle of the Care Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Foundation Trusts. Despite this, MPs and the government at continue to insist that the NHS is not being privatised. - The HuffingtonPost UK

Watch the trailer: https://vimeo.com/108492812

Despite Corbyn the impossibility of tackling climate change within capitalism remains the key issue for eco-socialists

The old politics is crumbling, not just in Britain but across our continent. We now have the chance to embrace a movement based not on greed or fear, but on resilient local communities, people working together and a stable economy that works for generations to come. I truly hope you win the contest on 12 September – and I look forward to continuing to work with you to bring about the progressive politics that has inspired us both for so many years...

Caroline Lucas' open letter to Jeremy Corbyn published in the Independent LINK  has created a lot of discussion and comment, not all of it complimentary.

When members of the Labour Party have asked me to join the party I have often replied, only half-jokingly, 'I can't. I'm a socialist!'

Now it looks as if that is what the Labour Party itself is saying to some of those who have joined recently as a result of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign.

I haven't because I am committed to eco-socialism and a member of  Green Left. This is what we said in 2006:

 “Activists in the Green Party have founded Green Left because many Greens believe the only path to an ecological, economically and socially just and peaceful society has to be based on an anti-capitalist political agenda.”

You can read more about Green Left's political position HERE but for me a key issue is that climate change as a result of human activity is such a threat that we have to change that activity. We cannot continue expanding industrial production without limit as the processes involved will accelerate climate change and eventually threaten humankind and other species.

To change to a sustainable economy requires separating wants from needs, ending the artificial creation of demand through advertising,  stopping the plundering of the earth's finite resources, and creating an economic system based on cooperation rather than competition and exploitation.

This is the opposite of neoliberalism which monetises everything from education to water and has no regard for the damage it causes to people and planet.

Corbyn's campaign although sharing many of the Green Party's policies does not address this fundamental issue at the heart of the planetary crisis.  The Labour Party he will inherit as leader, if elected, is still committed to the neoliberal agenda, albeit a slightly softer version than the Tory one, and it will be a huge battle to change that commitment as the reaction of the Blairites, the bulk of the media, and the Establishment have shown.

The Labour leadership campaign has highlighted one issue for me regarding democratic policy making. All the candidates seem to be putting forward policies as individuals, reflecting the party's move away from the sovereignty of conference when members can put forward motions about vital issues and principles, debate and vote on them - it is now a top-down process.  The leadership campaign, rather like a General Election, gives rank and file members just one chance to vote on policy through choosing one of the candidates rather than a say in formulating policy.

The Green Party  still makes policy democratically at its two Conferences a year with a process that includes pre-agenda discussions, pre-conference prioritisation, conference workshops culminating a debate on the floor of the Conference. The leader has no more say in these debates than rank and file members.  The Autumn Conference will be after the winner of the Labour contest is announced and any alliances or pacts will be subject to Conference debate and decision making.

The process means that our leaders cannot make up major policy on the hoof without it first having been decided by the membership. This probably led to some of the difficulties experienced by Natalie Bennett during the General Election campaign when the media expected her to have the same freedom to make policy as other party leaders.

These differences in the process of policy making will present some difficulties if a Corbyn led Labour Party and the Greens set up some kind of 'progressive' alliance ('progressive' is a vague label claimed by many often conflicting groups - anti-austerity or socialist alliance may be better as a guide to action in this parliament).

The undemocratic structures of the Labour Party, the dominance of the far from radical Parliamentary Labour Party, the behind the scenes machinations of the Establishment and intelligence services (cf my previous article on Harold Wilson and my prediction of dirty tricks over Corbyn's support for Palestine LINK) and media hostility all lead me to fear that Andy Burnham will end up as Labour Party leader but, along with Caroline Lucas, I wish Corbyn well.