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

Powerful speech by Tulip Siddiq on why she will vote against Article 50 Bill tonight

Agree with her or not, Tulip Siddiq's speech was eloquent and passionate.  See the speech HERE

Apprenticeship schemes under scrutiny as CNWL alleged fraud raises more questions

The Institute of Fiscal Studies Report on apprenticeships LINK raised a number of key issues: I draw particular attention to the highlighted issue of concern to us in Brent over the College of North West London alleged fraud by a subcontractor which led to 78 students missing out due to a non-existent course LINK:

• Although the apprenticeship levy increases taxes on large employers, the new subsidies for employers to train apprentices mean that employers will have to pay nothing, or at most 10%, of off-the-job training costs for apprentices, up to certain price caps set by the government. This will increase the incentive to employers to hire apprentices, particularly those aged 19 and over for whom employers paid at least 50% of training costs prior to 2017.

• This zero or near zero cost of training poses considerable risks to the efficient use of public money. Employers will have little incentive to choose training providers who can provide training at a lower price. Employers will also have a big incentive to re-label existing training schemes as apprenticeships.

• The target of an average of 600,000 new apprentices a year in this parliament is a 20% increase on the level in 2014–15. This large expansion risks increasing quantity at the expense of quality. Although the government is trying to increase the quality of apprenticeships, the Institute for Apprenticeships may come under pressure to approve new apprenticeships quickly. Ofsted will take on an expanded (and welcome) role with respect to inspecting training providers and employers. However, it has already expressed serious concerns about the quality of apprenticeship schemes, particularly those created more recently.

• The apprenticeship levy will put downward pressure on wages. The Office for Budget Responsibility assesses that it will reduce wages by about 0.3% by 2020–21. While only 2% of employers will pay the levy, at least 60% of employees work for employers who will pay the levy.

• The government has set every public sector employer with at least 250 employees in England a target that 2.3% of their workforce must start an apprenticeship each year. This takes no account of big differences between organisations. Unless existing employees start apprenticeships, the targets imply around one-in-five new public sector hires must be an apprentice. Such a blanket policy cannot be an efficient way to improve skills in the public sector. It risks costly reorganisation of training and inefficient ways of working. These targets should be removed.

• The government has also failed to make a convincing case for such a large and rapid expansion in apprenticeships. In seeking to justify these changes, it quotes statistics that show a collapse in employees’ training. However, better measures of training show a much more modest decline. The government also makes wildly optimistic claims about the extra economic activity or earnings such investment in apprenticeships could generate (with quoted benefit-to-cost ratios of over 20:1). While there is a clear need for a better-trained workforce, this cavalier use of statistics risks undermining what might be a perfectly sensible case for a gradual expansion of apprenticeships in areas where quality can be assured.

I can reveal that the company involved in the alleged apprenticeship scheme fraud at the College of North West London was  Keyrail Training Ltd/Keyrail Training Solutions Ltd, an Approved Apprenticeship Training Agency listed at the Skills Funding Agency.

Interestingly this notice was posted on the Companies House site revealing that it was dissolved in May 2016.

However the company remained on the Skills Funding Agency (SFA)  Declared Subcontractors List in September 2016 with an entry of £256,000 for the College of North West London. It was removed from the list in January 2017. The entry for May 2015 had been under the name of Keyrail Training Ltd and was for £100,000 for the College of North West London.

The alleged fraud was  uncovered in the summer of 2016 and the removal from the list may have followed the result of that investigation being reported to the SFA.

The extent of the alleged fraud clearly  supports the IFS concerns but also raises the whole issue of governance of the FE sector, monitoring and audit arrangements, the role of the SFA and risks associated with the privatisation of the sector and the lack of democratic accountability. There is also concern that Indro Sen, the UCU representative at CNWL who assisuously pressed for a full investigation into the issue remains suspended by CNWL management.

It reminds me of the whistleblowing by Hank Roberts, ATL representative at the then Copland High School when he uncovered a fraud at the school.

It is unclear what action has been taken by the police but it is perhaps noteworthy that Mark Gallagher, Brent Borough Commander, is on the governing body (Corporation) of the College of North West London.

Dawn Butler meeting on Article 50 vote

The livestream of Dawn Butler's meeting on the Article 50 debate did not work well but a recording is available on her Facebook site. (Note the camera falls down at one point but is restored and the recording fragments a little at the end).

Support builds for Indro Sen in CNWL dispute

The London Region of the UCU passed a motion of Indro Sen and the CNWL union branch at their meeting on Saturday. Indro Sen, UCU representative,  is currently suspended by the College of North west London. A meeting to express solidarity will be held at Willesden Library at 6pm on February 24th with an open invitationto students, parents, trade unionists and community activists.

The resolution states:

Motion to Support Sen and CNWL UCU – 28.1.17

London Region sends it solidarity to Sen and the Branch in their campaign against victimisation.

The LR resolves to:

1) Support the next strike day and join Sen and his colleagues on the picket lines 

2) Encourage branches to support a day of action in support of Sen on the next day of strike action. Eg taking solidarity selfies.

3) Encourage members to attend the public meeting on 24 February in support of Sen. 

4) Request that Sen’s campaign is publicised through UCU's national networks including Campaign news.

Spurs planning application for Wembley Stadium now open for comments

Click on image to enlarge

The application to increase the number of event days at Wembley Stadium and to increase the number of full capacity events has now been published on the Brent Council website.  Full documentation can be accessed and comments made. LINK

I was interested in the fact (see image above) that no local residents in the neighbourhood, nor residents' associations or other organisations, schools etc have been directly written to with a 'unique letter' about the plans.  Consultation with them seems to be limited to a presentation at Wembley Connects, a poorly advertised and attended event at Chalkhill Community Centre on Monday, and an advertisement in the Kilburn Times.

The proposal in summary is:

[Previously] the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium.

The proposal would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people.

Spurs set out their responses to concerns about the application in their 'Statement of Community Engagement' which addresses issues such as urinating in public, obscene and racist chants, congestion, pay back for residents. I have embedded it below for ease of reference. In particular see pages 5-9. The current 'standard' expiry date for consultation is February 23rd 2017.



There is an ongoing discussion about the application on the Streetlife website LINK

Zone of Non-Being:Guantanamo - Screening & Q&A Thursday