Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poverty. Show all posts

Wednesday 7 July 2021

Brent Lead Members answer some pertinent questions from councillors on support for pandemic's financial victims, climate action, tackling poverty and access to Recycling Centre after ULEZ expansion

Questions to Cabinet members from opposition councillors and non-Cabinet members are sometimes worth reading, although there are so few opposition councillors they tend to be 'friendly' questions enabling lead members to showcase their achievements.  These are the questions tabled for Monday's Full Council and the full answers are in the document posted below. Remember click bottom right for full page.

1.    Question from Councillor Parvez Ahmed to Councillor Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader:

 

Can the Deputy Leader set out what is being done to support those of this borough’s residents whose financial situations have been hardest hit by the pandemic? Likewise, can the Deputy Leader explain what steps this council is taking to help the types of small businesses that local economies like Brent’s depend upon?

 

2.   Question from Councillor Orleen Hylton to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment:

 

In July 2019, Brent Council declared a climate and ecological emergency and committed to do all in its gift to strive for carbon neutrality by 2030. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the current efforts towards recovery, can the Cabinet Member for Environment set out how Brent’s efforts to build back better will help deliver on this borough’s climate commitments?

 

3.   Question from Councillor Gwen Grahl to Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Lead Member for Housing & Welfare Reform:

 

Can the Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform update on how Brent has so far delivered on its promise to tackle poverty, in all its forms, as so starkly laid out in last year’s Independent Poverty Commission’s findings.

 

4.    Question from Councillor Michael  Maurice to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment:

 

From 25 October 2021, the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)is expanding from central London to create a single, larger zone up to the A406 North Circular Road. Petrol cars registered before 2006 and diesel cars registered before 2015 are likely to incur a £12.50 daily charge should they travel into the ULEZ area. This means that Brent residents living north of the North Circular Road with an older vehicle will incur a charge should they use the Household Waste and Recycling Centre situated at Abbey Road. This will impact those on low incomes disproportionately and potentially result in an increase of fly tipping. Will this Council make representations to Transport for London and the Mayor of London seeking an exemption from the charge for Brent residents legitimately using the HWRC. Alternatively, will the Council request that Brent residents living north of the zone be allowed to utilise Harrow Council’s facility at Forward Drive, thus avoiding the requirement to enter the ULEZ area? A map has been attached for further background


 

Monday 17 August 2020

Brent Poverty Commission calls for increased investment in social housing & in-depth review of private rented sector




Brent Council Press Release


Today (Monday 17 August), Brent’s Poverty Commission delivered its findings, following a six-month review into poverty in the London borough. It points out 1 in 6 households (17%) live below the poverty line, doubling (to 33%) after housing costs are taken into account. More than 1 in 5 (22%) of children live in poverty, doubling to a startling 43% after housing costs.

The report draws on evidence from residents, politicians and expert local and national organisations and presents powerful first-hand experiences, bringing home what it means to live in poverty in Brent.

Closing the housing gap

The Commission found that the borough’s proximity to wealth and the skilled employment offered by central London has driven housing costs up without raising pay locally, creating an affordability gap which pushes people into poverty and is a key cause of homelessness. It points to an acute shortage of social housing which has forced people into the private rented sector where rents are two or even three times higher.

To address this, the Commission recommends Brent Council builds on its ambitious plans to generate more affordable homes, using its borrowing powers to build, working with housing associations and taking advantage of post-COVID opportunities to buy from developers and landlords who are exiting the market. It also urges the council to launch an in-depth review into the private rented sector, and enforce decent standards, not least to reduce fuel poverty and health problems caused by poor conditions.

Keeping the sharks at bay

With the second highest number of furloughed workers in London and high rates of in-work poverty due to low pay, the Commission highlights the importance of active labour market policies in the wake of COVID-19 to support job creation and improve local earnings.
Recommendations include using the council’s local influence and procurement powers to secure more quality apprenticeships and specialist skills training, as well as to encourage more small and medium-sized employers to pay the London Living Wage. In particular, prioritising activities to raise the aspirations of young people in the borough.

To break cycles of debt that COVID-19 is likely to exacerbate, the Commission encourages the council to take forward work recently started with credit unions to provide low-cost loans to cut down dependence on unscrupulous lenders.

Lord Richard Best, an independent crossbench peer and social housing champion, who chairs the Affordable Housing Commission, said:
Our report makes recommendations to ease poverty in Brent by raising incomes. It also shows that poverty is driven by high costs, specifically of private sector housing rents, that lead to more than 2 out of 5 children living in poverty. We call for urgent action to generate the social housing that can address this problem.
Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Cabinet Member for Housing & Welfare Reform at Brent Council, who commissioned the work said:
Because the causes of poverty are so complex, too often policy makers reach for sticking plasters. We wanted to understand how this web of problems, from wages to housing, debt and opportunity, come together to harm people’s quality of life in Brent.
I am extremely grateful to Lord Best for leading this Commission. We will offer a full response in the coming weeks, but I’m optimistic that this marks a new chapter in how we address poverty in Brent.



Friday 13 January 2017

Greens to stand in Copeland on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty platform



After the controversy over the Green Party's decision not to stand in the Richmond Park by-election there has been an ongoing debate in the party about the pros and cons of a progressive alliance. Local parties are autonomous and it is their decision on whether to stand a candidate.

The Green Party will contest the Copeland by-election on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty campaign.

Members of Allerdale and Copeland Green Party made the decision to stand last night (January 12th) at the local party’s AGM and a candidate will be selected on January 24th.

Clare Brown, chair of Allerdale and Copeland Greens, said:
We feel it’s vitally important to offer a vote to those people who want to see a fair and sustainable future for the area.
 
There are clear differences between us and the other parties and we welcome this opportunity to campaign on our priorities, which include sustainable energy and standing against nuclear power, as well as anti-poverty measures and exposing the lie of austerity.
With Labour looking set to select a pro-nuclear candidate the Greens will campaign for clean power in Copeland.

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:
The Greens are the only party in Copeland campaigning against nuclear power, to defend the NHS and for a close relationship with Europe.

Voting Green is a vote for a renewable energy revolution which would create thousands of jobs in Copeland.

Allerdale and Copeland Greens are dedicated to ending poverty and inequality in their local community and creating a fairer society by putting forward the bold policies we so desperately need.

Thursday 12 November 2015

Green Party condemns Government's 'assault' on children's futures

Responding to a report which has exposed the ‘double disadvantage’ being faced by young people from poor backgrounds, the Green Party has called on the government to tackle the rising impact of poverty on young peoples’ futures.

The report, written by education charity the Sutton Trust, found that less than one in three (29%) white working class boys from poor neighbourhoods are studying past GCSE level. That’s compared to almost half (46%) of working class boys from affluent areas and two in three (68%) of boys from wealthier backgrounds.

Alongside teaching unions and campaign groups, the Green Party has consistently emphasised the link between poverty and poor attainment in education, and called for greater investment in teaching as well as an end to the welfare reforms which have seen inequality widen.

Green Party spokesperson for schools, Samantha Pancheri, said:
The evidence of the damaging impact austerity is having on young people’s futures continues to mount and yet the government continues to wilfully ignore the facts. Quite frankly it’s inexcusable.

From welfare reforms exacerbating poverty, to cuts to education budgets, and the creeping privatisation of the education system, this report confirms that young peoples’ aspirations are being eroded through an assault on their future – an assault that the government has the power to stop.

We should not be surprised that working class children from poor neighbourhoods feel
disenfranchised from education, as the government’s reforms are creating more pressure than ever on pupils to perform well in examinations, whilst simultaneously eroding their prospects to turn this into a meaningful future for themselves.

Whilst this report highlights the urgent need to address the causes of young people struggling through the education system up to GCSE level, it is vital that this is accompanied by widespread efforts to protect Further Education, and ensure that pupils have every opportunity to fulfil their potential.

Tuesday 21 July 2015

UPDATE Brent Labour MPs 2-1 against Welfare Reform Bill


Dawn Butler (Brent Central) and Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead & Kilburn) defied the Labour whip last night and joined 46 other Labour MPs in voting against the Welfare Reform Bill. Liberal Democrat MPs also voted against.

Tulip Siddiq had signalled her intention in a Channel 4 News interview earlier that evening.  Renowned local Tweeter Pukkah Punjabi revised her Storify posting in  the light of Siddiq's stance. LINK




As far as I know ultra loyalist Barry Gardiner (Brent North) obeyed the whip. Gardiner's one attempt at rebellion was against Gordon Brown and unfortunately was ill-timed - just a few days before Big G 'Saved the World' during the economic crisis.

UPDATE Barry Gardiner has told the KILBURN TIMES that Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler fell into a Government trap by voting against the Bill:
He explained: “Either we voted for the bill because we supported those of our policies that they’d incorporated into it but in so doing we voted for unacceptable changes to the benefits system such as three million families that are going to lose £1000 or impact on carers from the benefit cap. Or we voted against those regressive policies in the bill but in so doing voted against our own on apprenticeships.

“It was meant to trap us. It was a false choice designed to force us into either opposing our own policies or supporting the evil policies they were putting forward. I’ve always considered that if you’re asked to choose two unacceptable positions the sensible position is to refuse both. That is why I abstained."

The revolt perhaps gives some indication of the core support Jeremy Corbyn may command in the Parliamentary Labour Party. Labour Mayoral candidates Diane Abbot, Sadiq Khan and David Lammy also voted against the Bill.

Ahead of the vote Green MP, Caroline Lucas, said: 

“The Tories are attempting to dismantle our welfare state, and cut back on support given to those who need it the most.

“The bill will slash support for people with ill health including many with mental health problems – new claimants of Employment Support Allowance in the Work Related Activity Group, will see payments cut by almost £30 a week. This is very harmful for people with long-term fluctuating mental ill-health.  It will lock in child poverty for those born into larger families and it will leave Ministers significantly less accountable for their policies by scrapping the current legally binding child poverty targets.  

“It’s also deeply concerning that the bill includes a clause which would allow the Government to further lower the cap on benefits without properly consulting Parliament - thus potentially plunging more children into poverty without MPs even having a debate on the issue.

“It's now down to MPs from all parties to look beyond the politics of today’s debate and focus instead on the devastating impact that this piece of legislation will have on people up and down the country. 
"Our crumbling social security system is on the brink – now is the time to take a stand.

“George Osborne is playing politics with poverty. Failing to stand up to this regressive Welfare Bill would be an utter betrayal of the principle which says that those in need deserve support.  I’ll be joining many MPs from across the parties in voting against the Government’s Bill and making a stand for our welfare state.”
Lucas has spoken of the need for a 'Progressive Alliance' to challenge neoliberalism and austerity and yesterday's vote  gives some indication of the potential extent of that alliance in Parliament. 

Before the vote Owen Jones released a video making the case for voting against the Bill.


Tuesday 19 November 2013

Brent Council wants to leave Council Tax Support unchanged despite summonsing 3,300

The demonstration outside Willesden Magistrates Court
Some Brent Council consultations get more publicity than others. This one on the Council Tax Support Scheme seems a little hidden away so I thought I would bring it to your attention. The present system resulted in 3,300 people being summonsed to Willesden Magistrates Court by the Council for non-payment and a demonstration outside the court which received wide publicity. Some of those summonsed incurred extra court charges of £90 or more on top of the amount owed.

This consultation started without fanfare on November 11th and ends on December 12th.

Now believe it or not the Council, with minor changes, wants to keep essentially the same scheme despite Muhammed Butt vowing that Labour would protect the vulnerbale at last night's Council Meeting.

Below is an extract from the Council website. You can see the full consultation portal and submit your views HERE

Saturday 13 July 2013

Natalie Bennett speaks out on immigration as Teather laments the three party consensus

Sarah Teather, Lib Dem MP for Brent Central makes the front page of the Guardian today, with her criticism of the main main parties on immigration LINK:
Teather, whose Brent Central seat is an area of high poverty and immigration, said her decision to speak out was motivated only by concern that all three main parties had "seen the same opinion polls", and were chasing the anti-immigrant vote with no regard for the consequences. She said: "It's got to a stage where you almost can't say anything else. It's almost unacceptable to say anything else, and that bothers me that there is a consensus among the three party leaders.

"It's stifling the rest of the debate, making people afraid to speak. If you get to a stage where there is no alternative voice, eventually democracy's just going to break down."
Coincidently, Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party did exactly that yesterday, in a trenchant, principled and informed speech given at the Romanian Cultural  Institute. I reproduce it below and am grateful to Bright Greens for bringing it to my attention LINK:


This month, the Home Office, working under the direction of our Tory-Liberal Democrat Government, put out a report on the impact of immigration. It conducted a survey of local authorities and service providers, and found that the presence of immigrants was likely to lead to longer waiting times at GP surgeries, pressure on the number of primary school places due to the tendency of migrants to have more children than the native-born population and “poor quality, overcrowded acommodation, inflated rents, exploitations by unscrupulous landlords…”

Exactly the same data could have been taken, and looked at differently. Longer waiting times at GP surgeries – that reflects the failure of the government to provide adequate investment in the cost-effective, efficient publicly owned NHS, and the disruption caused by the wholesale, top-down reorganisation of the organisation by the current and previous governments, despite their lack of a mandate for the act.
Pressure on primary school places – the failure to make adequate provision for the known number of children, and the misdirection of money into areas where there isn’t need due to the ideological attachment of the Education Secretary to “free” schools.

Poor quality, overcrowded accommodation and exploitation – Britain’s longterm failure to build adequate housing, particularly social housing, and failure to regulate landlords and letting agents, to the point where protests against their abstractions are growing.

In short, it’s simple, the government is scapegoating immigrants instead of acknowledging its own failings and that of the former Labour government.

They are taking the understandable anger of the British public at the shortage and high cost of housing, at the underfunding of public transport and health services, at struggle to find a school place for your child, and trying to direct that to one group of British people.

It’s pernicious, it’s dangerous, and it needs to be challenged.

You might expect the Labour opposition to be standing up to this scapegoating, but no, instead they are pandering to it. The Labour Party has not apologised for taking Britain into the Iraq War, has not apologised for failing to regulate the bankers, has not apologised for the fact that inequality rose in its 13 years in power – but it has apologised for its immigration policy while in government.

But back to today… The Telegraph newspaper quoted Mark Harper, the immigration minister, as saying of the study: “It emphasises the importance of protecting our public services and taking a robust approach against those who come here to exploit our welfare system.”

I entirely agree with the first half of that sentence – although unfortunately this government is, through its policy of austerity and ideological attachment to privatisation, cutting a giant swathe through our essential services.

The second half of the sentence – well it is a total non sequiteur, since the survey was not about benefits, but worse, much worse, a misleading claim.
We’ve seen much focus in recent months from this government about the claim that immigrants are attracted to Britain by benefits. There is simply no evidence of this claim.

You don’t have to just believe me, you can go to the European Commission, not known for picking fights with member governments, which has accused Home Secretary Theresa May of inventing the problem of welfare tourism without providing any proof that EU foreign nationals are abusing free movement rules to claim benefits.

And as for asylum-seekers, research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that they had detailed knowledge about the UK benefits system – when fleeing persecution, they usually go where events take them, and when they do seek out Britain, it is usually because they already have family or friends here. And Britain is not especially a target. In 2011, the UK received 25,500 asylum applicants. France gets twice as many – and Britain is 14th out of 27 when looking at asylum seekers per head of population.

The deconstruction of this report is no academic exercise. It’s a critical issue of political debate in Britain.

The facts of immigration

First, it’s important to set the facts straight. It’s very easy to follow the rhetoric of the government and the rightwing media, and think that immigration is one of Britain’s chief problems. Or that immigration has entirely changed the face and culture of Britain.

A study out this week found that generally, Britons think 31 per cent of the population is recent immigrants. In fact the figure is 13% – representing about 7.5 million people. Black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent.

Turn the lens around, and about 5.5 million British people live in other countries around the globe. So the overall scale of exchange isn’t that far off balanced.
Second, it’s important to acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to Britain. The NHS could not operate without immigrant workers. Our social care system, and our education system are significantly dependent on immigrant workers.

If you measure this in financial terms, migrants make a significant net contribution to their funding through their tax and national insurance contributions. They make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is limited – much lower than that of the general population.

But of course their contribution isn’t only through employment, whether they are young or old. The grandmother who moves to Britain to be with her family – she might be providing childcare, or she might simply be providing the solidity, the knowledge, the experience of a lifetime. The partner who moves to Britain to be a “house husband” brings not only time and love, but also the cultural experience of a different life experience. The foreign student brings to their local course a whole host of different experiences, knowledge and skills to their local classmates, to the enrichment of all.

The political climate

So where is this attack on immigrants coming from? Politically, the answer is clear. Recently, I had the “pleasure” of being on Question Time with UKIP leader Nigel Farage.

He said there were 80,000 Romanians in Britain, and that the Metropolitan Police made nearly 30,000 Romanian arrests in the last five years. As a smear, it has clearly been effective, and often used.

Actually the figure for Romanians in Britain is, based on the Labour Force Survey, there are around 102,000 Romanians are Britain. That’s at one point in time, the end of 2012.

The arrest figures are over five years – and are actually less than 28,000. And they are only arrests – not individuals. And they undoubtedly include some tourists, not included in the resident figures. Undoubtedly there are some individuals arrested multiple times – and arrests are not charges, not convictions … and we are talking over five years.

The figures around broadly accurate in each individual case, but their manner of assembly deeply dishonest, deeply misleading, and deeply dangerous.

I am speaking today in the Romanian Cultural Institute – and I know that there is offence and worry in Romania about the way it’s people have been painted in Britain, by Mr Farage, by our rightwing media. I can only apologise.

Yet this toxic, dangerous rhetoric from UKIP is not being challenged – instead it is being pandered to. We have in Britain a “race to the bottom” on immigration rhetoric.

Less than two in 10 people in Britain think that immigration is a problem in their local area, but about three quarters are in favour of reducing immigration. That’s the product of this rhetoric.

Genuine, reasonable concerns, wrongly directed

We need to acknowledge people’s real concerns about their standards of living, the future of their children, the problems of housing, of public services, of unemployment and low wages, but we need to lay the blame where it truly lies, not casually, cruelly, dangerously, blame immigrants.

About one in ten new jobs goes to an immigrant. And we have a minimum wage which should be a floor under a balanced labour market. Yet this is inadequately enforced, too low (well below the living wage level at which it should be set), and firms are being allowed to increasingly use zero-hours contracts and forced casualization to provide jobs that no one can build a life on. This is an issue of labour market regulation, not immigration.

We need to acknowledge too that people, particularly in the South of England, are feeling crowded. The London Tube too often feels like you might imagine a sardine in a can does. Traffic congestion is a huge problem, and a huge health threat. Housing cost inflation is out of control.

But there are also a million empty homes in Britain, whole streets and even suburbs tormented by depopulation in the North of England. The congestion comes not due to immigration, but the failure of regional development policy to spread prosperity across the whole of the UK, not just concentrate it in London and environs.

And there is of course grave concern about Britain’s environmental impact on the world. We’re living a “three planet” lifestyle, when we only have one earth. But was Green Party policy makes clear, what we have to talk about is our ecological footprint – we need to get back within the planet’s limits, but that’s true not just of the UK, but the world.

Immigration cap

The government has established an effective immigration cap – promising that net immigration would be reduced “to tens of thousands” by the end of this parliament. Of course this ignores the fact that it has no control whatsoever over one side of this equation – immigration from Britain, the product of a whole host of individual circumstances.

More, it is promising that those coming into Britain will almost all be “the brightest and the best”.

In a speech this month, Tory MP Liam Fox said the government should “have a really good look at the type of people who will benefit our country and help generate wealth and prosperity”. “Nobody should assume they have the right to come to our country because they have relatives already here” – so there goes the right to a family life, acknowledged as a human right…

And more, there’s an important question to be asked about the value judgements here – is a hedge fund trader, who might have a high income, really more valuable than a carer, an arms company executive really more valuable than a beloved grandma? I don’t believe so – indeed the New Economics Foundation did an excellent study showing that for every £1 they are paid, childcare workers generate between £7 and £9.50 worth of benefits to society. By contrast a city banker destroys £7 of social value for every pound they generate.

The impact of the changes

Net migration fell to 153,000 in 2012, from 242,000 the previous year. The number of immigrants coming to Britain fell from 581,000 to 500,000, while the number of migrants leaving the country was up from 339,000 to 347,000.

But asked by  BBC to explain, the Institute of Public Policy Research think tank said this was “in large part” due to a drop in the numbers of international students, with “considerable economic cost” – estimated at £2-3 billion/year (conservatively).

You might expect the Labour Party to be highlighting, focusing on that cost, that loss of fees for our universities, the loss of opportunities for home students to study with a rich range of fellow students, but no, Labour welcomed the fall, saying the “pace and scale of immigration” had been too high. And shadow immigration minister Chris Bryant added that the government, “is not doing enough on illegal immigration, failing to deport, failing to prevent absconding”.

Family reunion

The tightest of the toughening of government rules has been in family reunion visas – we now have among the toughest rules in Europe.

Any British citizen who wants to sponsor his or her non-EU spouse’s visa has to be able to prove that they earn at least £18,600 a year – 47 percent of the British working population last year would have failed to meet the income level for sponsorship. The amount rises to £22,400 to sponsor a child and an additional £2,400 for each further child.)

By the government’s own estimate, almost 18,000 British people will be prevented from being reunited with their spouse or partner in the UK annually as a result of the new rules.

Pick up your local paper and you’ll often read these stories – individuals who’ve made relationships, formed ties, and are understandly bemused, confused, angered, that they can’t live together as a couple, can’t even care for their children in their home country. We are failing these individuals – failing our society by creating this situation.

These rules are unconscionable. They are unfair and arbitrary. And they must be changed.

Proud tradition of asylum

I live in central London around the corner from the Somers Town Coffee House, once the haven for Hugenot refugees from France, fleeing religious persecution. It’s one visual reminder of Britain’s proud tradition of providing refuge to those who need it, particularly political refugees.

But that reputation today is under threat. It’s a subject that I’ll be speaking on another time, but one statistic is telling – in 2012, 27 per cent of initial asylum rulings were overturned on appeal.

And the Green Party has long campaigned against the failure to recognise gender aspects of persecution. The system also fails to acknowledge the persecution faced by LGBTQ people in many countries around the world.

Global damage

The impact of the rhetoric of immigration, of government policies and policies proposals, stretches far beyond immigrants, prospective immigrants and their families.

Recently the government – the Liberal Democrats to the fore – floated a trial balloon suggesting that visitors (not immigrants) from a number of states, including India, could be forced to pay a £3,000 bond, to be repaid when they left the country.

I went on a major Indian evening television show where this was a topic of debate, to explain this didn’t reflect the views of all Britons, and was almost buried under a torrent of anger. Indians were insulted, they were angry, and they were threatening not just not to visit but to withdrew investment flows into Britain. It was unsurprising that David Cameron, who recently visited India with an ‘open for business’ message, quickly reversed the policy, but damage has definitely been done.

Conclusion

In 2011, Green Party conference passed a motion opposing the government’s cap on immigration.

It said we should stop “treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem”. Today, it’s important to restate that.

The approach to immigration of the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour distracts from our real problems – the failure of George Osborne’s policy of austerity, acknowledged now even by that well-known “champion “ of government spending the International Monetary Fund, the deep damage being done to our social fabric by the government’s ideologically driven assault on our public services and the social safety net provided by benefits.

And further more, it is going to have real world, serious, even potentially deadly consequences. The declaring of open rhetorical season on migrants by the majority of our politicians is a signal. It’s a signal to the drunk man in the pub, who wants a target for his abusive tongue, and quite possibly his fists, and is now increasingly likely to find it in someone who is, or he perceives to be, an immigrant. It’s a signal to the irate woman on the overcrowded bus, ready to launch a tirade at a fellow passenger who might be an immigrant.

We have a responsibility to say “enough”. To acknowledge that we need to welcome immigrants, to regard them not as economic pawns, but people, with families, with friends, with feelings – who deserve, and must get respect, and respectful treatment.

Cultural diplomacy begins at home.

Wednesday 16 January 2013

Vulnerable to get help to find cheaper fuel tariffs

From London Councils
 
Vulnerable residents in up to 1.75million homes across London will be offered assistance by their local council to get a better energy deal and save money.  

The pioneering scheme involving 17 boroughs, including Brent,  and London Councils, the organisation which represents the capital’s local authorities, was given £686,655 by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) from its Cheaper Energy Together fund.

The initiative will help the capital’s most vulnerable residents by getting them a cheaper tariff for their gas and electricity bills.

Each borough plan to use their equal share of the funding to work with residents who could benefit most from switching their energy tariff and advise them what their options are. It is estimated that 325,000 homes in the 17 boroughs are in fuel poverty which means more than 10 per cent of income is spent on electricity and gas.

The aim of the project is to sign up as many Londoners as possible, especially those who struggle the most to keep warm, and collectively negotiate a better deal with the gas and electricity companies on their behalf.

Chair of London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee, Councillor Catherine West said: “People who most need to keep warm to stay healthy are the least likely to make sure they are on the best energy deal. Some of the most vulnerable Londoners will not turn the heating on because they do not want to risk running up a large bill.

“This cross borough scheme will make a real difference this winter by advising residents about their options and helping them to switch to cheaper gas and electricity tariffs or suppliers.”

Kingston Council is the lead borough for the scheme. Council leader, Councillor Derek Osbourne said: “With energy bills soaring, we must help Londoners get cheaper energy deals and improve their home energy efficiency. Councils across the capital will do all that they can to help people, particularly the vulnerable and those on low incomes, keep warm at home.

“Switching collectively to one domestic energy provider to get better energy deals can benefit us all as residents.”

Wednesday 19 December 2012

More funding needed to pay London nursery workers a proper wage


 The following statement has been released by London Councils, the body representing 33 local authorities in London:

Pressures on London’s childcare system mean that almost 25,000 extra nursery places are necessary to meet a headline pledge by the Deputy Prime Minister, new research shows.

London Councils, the body which represents the capital’s 33 local authorities, commissioned Daycare Trust, a national charity which campaigns for affordable childcare, to look at how to make the entitlement for free part-time early years education for the poorest 20 per cent of two-year olds work in the capital.

The research reveals that a minimum of 24,100 new places are needed to meet the pledge. This will rise further to 31,700 places by September 2014.

Factors adversely affecting the capital, including higher levels of poverty, rising birth rates, migration and higher staff and property costs, mean that the costs of delivering the scheme will be significantly higher than elsewhere in the UK.

To meet this challenge, the report outlines how a number of boroughs are taking innovative approaches to deliver the offer. This includes augmenting early years education with home learning and parental support. This eases pressure on childcare providers and provides targeted and integrated support to deprived families. 

The report makes a number of recommendations to government about how best to make the programme work. As well as supporting combining early years education with targeted parental support, the government should provide sufficient funding to London Boroughs to allow providers to be paid £8 per hour. Based on government allocations, providers will receive a significantly lower average of £5.71 per hour if all revenue funding goes to providers.
Mayor Jules Pipe, Chair of London Councils, said:

“Today’s research shows that councils are thinking innovatively about how to create the places needed to deliver this new entitlement. However, London has more births, more poverty and more expensive childcare costs than elsewhere in the UK. The government needs to take this into account.”
Anand Shukla, Chief Executive of Daycare Trust, said:

“This policy has the potential to boost the life chances of the most deprived children in London but finding an additional 25,000 early education places for two year olds is proving a huge challenge for local authorities. A shortfall in day-to-day funding, for providers and for local authorities, risks compromising this ambitious policy. A small amount of extra funding would get the buy-in of providers and the essential local authority infrastructure needed to make this scheme a success.”

Monday 17 December 2012

Brent CAB gives out record number of food vouchers today

Tweet from Brent Citizens' Advice Bureau today:


Poverty in Brent: today we gave out a record 16 food vouchers to families in need. Sign of the times?

Friday 7 December 2012

McDonnell: Let's form a national coalition against poverty

John McDonnell MP has sent the following open letter to his Labour colleagues:

Dear Colleague,

Proposed Welfare Benefits Bill

As you know, Osborne announced that the Coalition is to bring forward before Christmas a Bill to sanction the cuts in welfare benefits set out in yesterday’s autumn statement.

We all know that there is no need for primary legislation to implement these cuts and that this is his crude and blatantly cynical attempt to lay what he considers will be a political trap for Labour.
In his crude political terms, his obvious aim is to be able to claim that if Labour votes against or abstains on his Bill then we are on the side of the so called skivers whilst the Tories are the champions of the strivers. If we do vote for the Bill he will then cite our vote as support for his attack on benefits.

Like many right wing politicians over the years, when their policies are demonstrably failing they reach for a scapegoat. It’s often the poor simply because they haven’t the power to defend themselves.
I believe that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be dragged into the gutter of politics by Osborne’s exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Instead of falling for this grubby trap us let’s take them on, on this issue.

If we have the courage and behave astutely, we could turn this cynical ploy by Osborne into an opportunity for us to transform the debate on the issues of welfare, poverty, unemployment and fairness in our society.
 
This means stop all hesitation on this matter and making it clear now that we are not voting for this cynical attack on the poorest, which includes cutting benefits to many people in work and struggling to survive on low pay and often poverty wages.

It means saying now that we are taking the Tories on, on the issue of fairness. Nobody, especially ordinary working people, likes a skiver but there are mechanisms that can deal with this and if they need improving well let’s have that debate. The fact is that it is becoming increasingly obvious to our people that it is the rich and wealthy, who are ripping us off with tax dodging. It is equally becoming obvious whose side the Tories are on.

Let’s seize upon this opportunity to highlight the real facts about the hardship that so many of our people are facing. Most of our community are under pressure. Many are only a couple of pay packets away from a life on the edge. Many others have tipped over into debt and poverty.

Let’s turn the tables on Osborne and use this opportunity to expose this reality and offer our alternative of a fair tax system and investment for growth led employment.

Let’s get out there and build the coalition of all those people and organisations who are willing to speak out on what is happening to our people. That means nationally and locally bringing together not just all the charities and campaigning organisations that take an interest in poverty and welfare but all the churches, mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, community organisations and anyone with a conscience on this issue.

Let’s lead in forming a new national coalition against poverty and those who attack the poor.
Let’s enlist the support of people from all walks of life, including artists and performers, in the same way we did in the fight against the prejudice of the Nazis against black people and ethnic minorities.

In many ways it’s the same struggle against prejudice mobilised by cynical politicians.

It should start though by making it clear immediately that we are not playing Osborne’s cynical political games. We are not voting for his cuts to the poor.

Yours ,
John McDonnell MP