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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Morley, NUJ Northern and Midlands organiser, said:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Butler tweeted:

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

In a statement to constituents Butler said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warm regards,

Dawn

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

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

Fellow activist Michael Calderbank tweeted: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tulip Siddiq was backed by her local Labour Party GC:

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

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

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

Kevin Courtney's letter to NUT members on Trump protests

Dear colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With best wishes,
Kevin Courtney,
NUT General Secretary

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).