Havering Council Meeting, 17th January 2024 (part one)

Keith Prince had a tour de force (1 hour18)¹ His motion was opportunist (see addendum) building on the anger that SEN children’s school transport should be ‘reviewed’. It’s believed this will reduce the quality of the service. (A clue is a possible £1.4m saving over four years.).²

Keith said HRA and Labour amendments were out-of-order. This isn’t a technicality. If they were out-of-order, HRA and Labour would be caught in a cleft stick. They’d have to vote FOR the motion and lose £1.4m. Alternatively, vote AGAINST and show they were ruled by accountants.³

The Monitoring Officer rescued them. In an excruciating passage he wriggled⁴ and produced a ‘solution’. HRA’s amendment was accepted and the review of SEN transport continues its ‘consultation’ period.

Oscar Ford (2:08) kept remarking on ‘cost effective’ transport and Havering’s financial position. Unfortunately, an option is Uber. Robert Benham (2:13) noted Uber allocates drivers randomly and many children need continuity or get distressed. David Taylor (2:28) commented on Uber’s surge pricing mechanism, which makes predictions impossible. Ray Morgon (2:41) quoted a comment from ‘someone’ who said cabbies were making ‘thousands of pounds’ from SEN transport to bolster his argument.⁵ No evidence, no names.

Keith Darvill (2:21) politicised the issue in a telling speech.

Addendum: The Conservative Motion

“This Council calls on the Cabinet not to proceed with the proposed cuts and changes in service, proposed in the Home to School Transport consultation. It further recognises that such cuts would have a detrimental impact on both children and parents, causing them increased stress and anxiety.” (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Council, 17/01/2024 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) p39

Notes

1 Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) All times refer to this webcast The item begins at 1 hour 18 minutes and finished at 2:01 hours = 33 minutes of debate.

2 Several councillors noted they’d spoken to protestors outside the Town Hall. Specifically, Cllrs. Persaud, Taylor and Wise who made comments in their speeches

3 Typically this is known as a lose-lose situation

4 Giving a minute-by-minute timeline to ‘explain’ why the cock-up wasn’t his fault. And then discovered an arcane sub-clause ‘rarely’ used to defend the indefensible.

5 This is an example of Confirmation Bias where *evidence* is used to support an argument and countervailing points are ignored or downplayed

School Ties – A Tax on Learning?

Havering’s academies obsess about school uniform, believing it’s a recipe for success. This obsession includes the colour of shoe laces¹ and ties are considered equally essential, “The understated yet smart combination of a black blazer with black and maroon striped tie is instantly recognisable, and underpins the high standards of work and behaviour within the school.” (my emphasis)² Ties are supported by the government who have made it policy. “We will support schools to introduce traditional blazer-and-tie uniforms, prefects and house systems.”³

The Prime minister tieless at Bolsover School. Clearly not on message!

Ties are relics of a by-gone age like barristers’ wigs. Believing in a connexion between ties and *high standards* is delusional. Marshalls Park is typical – “Ties must be worn with logo showing below the knot.⁴ Worse, academies exclude⁵ students breaching school uniform policy. Conformity is more important than the legal right to an education.

Academies invest resources enforcing school uniform and inflicting economic pain. The result? Academies report GCSE results Olympic Games style.⁶ They brag about superstar students with 9 ‘A*s’. About 30% of Havering’s students massively under-achieve and are invisible in academy reports. Are they an embarrassment?

Focusing on the silent 30% should be the number one priority, not school ties.

Addendum: School Ties – a tax on learning

Havering has 17,327 students in secondary school. A small sample shows ties cost about £7. Havering’s parents have paid approximately £127,289 for school ties for no educational benefit. Bizarrely, Harris Academy, Rainham demands boys wear ties, but not girls. They don’t care about the Equality Act, 2010,⁹ or the girls who miss out on the *benefits* of wearing ties.

The £127,289 is a minimum as many students will buy more than one tie in their five years in school.

Notes

1 Havering’s Academies: School Shoes and Shoe Laces – Politics in Havering

2 Uniform – The Campion School According to government statistics Campion is in the second category as being *above average.* Nonetheless 32% of their students didn’t achieve grade 5 in English and mathematics. All schools and colleges in Havering – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk)

3 Schools White Paper: 24 Nov 2010: House of Commons debates – TheyWorkForYou Gove admitted using cocaine in 2019 see Michael Gove admits he was lucky to avoid jail over cocaine use – BBC News

4 Uniform-Policy-1.pdf (marshallspark.org.uk) A logo automatically makes ties more expensive

5 Students who flout the rules regarding uniform will be kept in isolation, or sent home to change appearance/uniform item…. Persistent offenders will be given an automatic after school detention and an exclusion may be applied. (my emphasis) BEHAVIOUR POLICY April 2023 – Google Docs Redden Court school, which is typical.

8 All schools and colleges in Havering – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK (compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk) Six are below average, 7 are average and 5 above average.

9 equality act 2010 – Search (bing.com)

Havering’s Half Baked Budget Consultation, 2024-5

“Even with the difficult proposals put forward in this consultation, the Council still has a budget deficit of £12 million.”¹ (my emphasis)

Only half of the savings/revenue increases are available for consultation. Another £12m is floating about. The consultation is farcical. Voters are expected to see half a budget and take the other half on ‘trust’. In other words, agree half a budget and get £12m of cuts sight unseen.

The £12 million deficit demands an 8% council tax increase ABOVE what’s proposed.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Huge deficits need bold, imaginative transformative options. Avoiding bankruptcy in February 2024, requires brave leadership.²

Instead, the Administration has lost hope.³ The majority of the £11.93m cuts and savings programme is contained within five items, none of which are sufficient for the task in hand.⁴ Financial juggling and increased parking charges, for example, are 49% of the £11.93m. Toxic options, which would solve the challenge, are avoided. Havering waits for government Commissioners to do the unpopular dirty work.⁵

Keith Darvill⁶ said borrowing £12m from the government is “massive.” Massive means: £12m at 7.1% (RPI + 1%) for 20 years = £17m interest.⁷Mortgaging future generations for a year’s deficit. The elephant in the room? 2025-6, 2026-7 and so on.

A genuine consultation should offer a 13% increase in council tax OR brutal cuts in services. Undemocratic play-acting is absolutely unacceptable in a mature democracy.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This is a government inspired *perfect storm* for local authorities, not just Havering.

“I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy to destroy local government. But I think we are sleepwalking towards a position where councils just won’t be viable.”

He said that while assets could be sold off in the short term, it would lead to a big transfer of wealth of public assets into private hands.”⁸

I think there is a conspiracy to privatise local authorities and loot their assets.

Notes

1 Havering Budget Consultation 2024 – London Borough of Havering Council – Citizen Space

2 Romford Recorder² headline was: ‘Council could declare bankruptcy in 3 months’. 24^th November 2023 p3 Reporter Josh Mellor

3 The consultation document is here Budget Leaflet.pdf (havering.gov.uk) The summary statement is here 1 APPENDIX A SUMMARY SAVINGS PROPOSALS.pdf (havering.gov.uk)

4 Ibid (Appendix A) The top 5 account for 49% (£5.85m) the other 51% is 35 items the smallest of which is £23K

5 Reducing the library service to two libraries, closing Romford market and ending the 30 minutes free period for parking are obvious starting places.

6 Romford Recorder 24^th November 2023 p3

7 United Kingdom Retail Price Index YoY (tradingeconomics.com) RPI = Retail prices index

8 Jeremy Hunt’s budget cuts spark fears of ‘existential threat’ to English councils (msn.com)

Havering’s Budget Proposal for 30 Minutes Free Parking

Havering council is facing bankruptcy¹ and has a reckless budget proposal. The maintenance of 30 minutes free parking in Hornchurch and Upminster is expensive² and untenable. Worse, there’s no evidence that it helps shopkeepers, which is, allegedly, the justification for the policy.

Havering council’s free car parking policy is gesture politics. It’s claimed that shoppers demand free parking or shopkeepers will suffer along with the borough. The evidence is that the cost of car parking is less important than access to good quality parking. This is especially the case where shopping centres are pedestrianised or where cars have restrictions placed on them,

“Studies from the UK found an increase in trading of up to 40% across a number of pedestrianised sites.”³

Additionally, the other car parking proposals make the policy quixotic. The council intends to create £3 million of additional revenue. There will be charges for Sunday car parking, and increases for on and off-street parking, parking permits and in parks.⁴ Car parking charges in parks is a blow to the principal leisure activity for residents. (It could be halved if the 30 minutes charge was abandoned.)

Does anyone believe this policy will survive the bankruptcy solutions of Government Commissioners?

Notes

1 Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part one) – Politics in Havering

2 Council passes Havering budget for 2023/24 | The London Borough Of Havering It cost £650K in lost revenue in 2023-4. This will increase to about £750K in 2024-5.

3 Reclaiming the streets: the increasing trend of pedestrianisation around the world | Rapid Transition Alliance

4 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 08/11/2023 19:30 (havering.gov.uk)

Havering Cabinet Meeting: 8th November, 2023

Havering is facing bankruptcy because of Conservative government policies. It has off-loaded statutory duties onto Havering without funding them.¹ Consequently, the council taxpayer meets the costs of social care for adults and children. The direction of travel is that the entire budget will be consumed by these items.

Ray Morgon (@2)² led a blistering attack on the incompetence of the Conservative government. He scorned the Austerity programme, 2010-23. Chris Wilkins (@6), denounced the government’s use of the 2011 Census for Havering’s funding formula.

Gillian Ford (@11) said a 102-year-old woman could be evicted to save money. This might suit Boris Johnson but Gillian was outraged. Oscar Ford (@14) identified *hedge funds* as profiteers from children’s services. He prefers the Scottish no-profit system. Keith Darvill (@15) quoted woeful statistics about homelessness, which made him despair.

Paul Middleton (@22) confirmed libraries would be affected. Graham Williamson (@23) said the decline in the planning services continued. Barry Mugglestone (@27) defended his untenable 30 minutes free parking policy. The current financial situation makes this a luxury and there’s no evidence it works.

Keith Prince (@29) got Williamson to admit Havering’s police funding would be paid by ‘someone or other’. Mysterious! Martin Goode (@40) jog-trotted through the proposals. A feral cabinet³ attacked him. They didn’t like his pithy “scrambling in the dark” summary of their efforts.

The CEO (@58) reiterated his passion for lobbying. This is a triumph of hope over experience.

The Conservatives have thrown down the gauntlet to local government.⁴ Local councils should exploit the fact that 2024 is an election year and go into battle!

Notes

1 No solution to ‘broken’ children’s services that are crippling council budgets, MPs warned (msn.com)

2 All times relate to the webcast Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) @2 means 2 minutes into the webcast.

3 Mugglestone, Middleton, G. Ford and Darvill

4 Surrey Council tax rise of 15% scrapped – BBC News As there are 4 cabinet ministers in Surrey it’s widely believed a back stairs deal was done with the government. See also Havering Council Tax: Is It Too Low? – Politics in Havering

Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part two)

Margaret Thatcher’s prime ministership ended after introducing the Poll Tax for council financing. Every property was charged the same amount. A one-bedroom flat was taxed like a mansion. It provoked riots and she lost support in her party.

Panic-stricken, the Conservative government introduced Council Tax. Eight bands, loosely based on 1991¹ evaluations, remain to this day. These valuation bands are supposed to reflect house prices across the country.

The intention was that bands would be reviewed every five years. This would have captured changes in real time. Political cowardice prevented revaluations happening. Winners are happy and losers scream blue murder with obvious electoral consequences. London’s 73 MPs absolutely opposed re-establishing the link between property values and council tax. London’s house prices had rocketed and they didn’t want council tax to double as a consequence.

In Havering, Band D house prices in Rainham have increased eight times since 1991.²The earliest statement of council tax bands are for 1993-4 when band D was set at £535.³ For 2023-4, Band D is £2,088 – four times more.

Havering’s council tax would double if it was a property tax.

Havering’s road to disaster began in 1991. A panic-stricken Conservative government tried to rescue themselves after Margaret Thatcher. They made disastrous decisions, which have lasted 32 years. Havering’s 2023-4 budget raised £149m from council tax.⁴ This should have been a minimum of £300 million. And more if upward revaluations are included.

Havering is a victim of national politics.

Notes

1 How domestic properties are assessed for Council Tax bands – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

2 House Prices in Guysfield Drive, Rainham, Havering, London, RM13 (rightmove.co.uk)

3 Previous years’ bands | Council Tax bands and bills | The London Borough Of Havering

4 Decision – The 23/24 Council Budget setting report and 2023-2027 Medium Term Financial Strategy | The London Borough Of Havering

Havering’s Impending Bankruptcy: The Road to Disaster (part one)

Havering’s Strategy Director Kathy Freeman stated: “We are very close to issuing a section 114, [bankruptcy] even six months away from this happening. Our average resources cannot meet the financial requirements.¹

In 2010 Conservative chancellor, George Osborne,² (see addendum) began his attack on local government. Without profiling the financial needs of local government, he capped Council Tax increases to zero%.

Instantly, he demonstrated he didn’t understand two fundamental fiscal principles;

The corrosive impact of inflation
The corrosive impact of the compounding of inflation.

Osborne’s decision was based on ‘something for nothing’.⁴ He talked of ‘waste’ and ‘inefficiencies’ to confuse the electorate. Simultaneously, additional duties and responsibilities were imposed on councils.

Since 2010, British inflation has been 46.88%.⁵Havering’s stand still council tax should have increased at the same pace. In 2010-11 a band D was £1,505. This year, 2023-4, it’s £2,088.13. Inflation linked council tax would have brought the figure to £2,210.56. Havering is minus £122.43 per band D house. There are 107,798 houses in Havering and band D is the average. Osborne’s misunderstanding about inflation has cost Havering approximately £14 million annually.

But the Conservative chancellors weren’t finished with their attack on local government. They reduced government funding. In 2010, Havering received £70 million. In 2023-4, it was £2.9 million. A real reduction of £100 million per year.

The cost of Conservative policies, 2010-23, for Havering is £119 million per year. This is why Havering will probably go bankrupt.

Addendum: Conservative chancellors 2010-23 (their university degree in brackets)

George Osborne (History)
Philip Hammond (Philosophy, politics and economics)
Sajid Javid (Economics and politics)
Rishi Sunak (Philosophy, politics and economics)
Nadhim Zahawi (Chemical engineering)
Kwasi Kwartang (Classics and history)
Jeremy Hunt (Philosophy, politics and economics)

Notes

1 Havering Council balancing on the brink of bankruptcy-A ‘114’ could be issued within months. – The Havering Daily

2 Osborne was educated at private schools: George Osborne – Wikipedia

3 Council funding for taxi trips for Havering school children with special needs to cease (taxi-point.co.uk) “….reimbursement for fuel or a trip via ride-hailing service Uber would cost approximately £30 per day….disabled children will experience changes, ‘appropriate measures’ will be taken to ensure their needs are appropriately addressed.” The human cost of bankruptcy. The weakest and most vulnerable suffer first

4 The 2016 Brexit referendum ‘battle-bus’ is identical with the false claim that leaving the EU would ‘free up’ £350m a week for the NHS.

5 Inflation calculator | Bank of England

Havering’s Overview and Scrutiny Board: 30th March, 2023

The Overview and Scrutiny Board is Havering’s principal scrutiny committee. It has twelve members and ten attended this meeting. (Non-attendees were cllrs Summers and Damian White.)¹

Item 6, Corporate Risk Register, analysed risks to the budget. (Addendum One) Every risk is rated ‘high’.² The minutes of the ‘discussion’ are shocking.³ There was virtually nothing said about this ultra-specific report. Worse, the viability of the mitigation of risks was unchallenged. Proposed mitigation included wishful thinking…lobbying government. (Addendum Two)

Members discussed ULEZ’s effects on some care workers, which isn’t a Corporate Risk and wasn’t in the report. The existential bombshell below was in the report and was ignored.
“Difficulty in identification of further efficiencies and savings following a decade [actually 13 years] of Austerity and increased demand following the COVID pandemic.”
Translated: LBH can’t mitigate risk because the Conservative Austerity programme has destroyed the resilience of the council.

The budget is at ‘High Risk’ of failure. Gerry O’Sullivan should summon Chris Wilkins, LBH’s finance Tsar, to discuss his mitigation proposals. The O/S Board meeting with Wilkins will be an important building block in proactive scrutiny.

Addendum One: High risk factors for the 2023-24 budget

Financial Resilience – Inability to deliver a balanced budget as a result of:

Inadequate Government Funding
Rising Demographic pressures and/or increased complexity of Social Care
Rapidly increasing inflation
Cost of Living Crisis
Delay or non-achievement of planned MTFS savings
Inability to forecast due to uncertainty over medium term Government Funding
Uncertainty regarding timing of future Government funding reforms including introduction of the care cap (currently no sooner than October 2025), whilst being required by government to move towards the median cost of care.
Difficulty in identification of further efficiencies and savings following a decade of Austerity and increased demand following the COVID pandemic
Government changes in policy e.g. changes to Home Office refugee dispersal

Addendum Two: Mitigation of the risks to the 2023-24 budget

Early diagnosis of the financial gap to allow time for actions to be put in place including new savings proposals.

– Lobby the Government at every available opportunity to put the case for both lack of Funding for local government generally and more specifically how Havering is disadvantaged from the current distribution formula. (my emphasis)

– Work with national lobbying groups such as the LGA and London Councils to put the case for more funding to the Government. (my emphasis)

– The Council has developed over £30m of savings proposals (over 4 years) which are being consulted on to reduce the financial gap which will be monitored for delivery.

– The Council continues to review its structure to develop a new target operating model which both aligns with current service priorities but also delivers savings and efficiencies.

– The Council is in the process of reviewing the Capital Programme to ensure that all schemes continue to be viable (see regeneration section of this risk register for further details).

– The Council has developed action plans to mitigate and reduce the in-year overspend including:

All overspends reviewed and challenged to identify any non-recurrent spend which could be funded from reserves · All use of consultancy reviewed by senior management

Appendix 1: Source: HAV00005 p31

Notes

1 For enquiries on this agenda please contact (havering.gov.uk) Cllr Ruck is the vice-chair he attended the meeting via Zoom, which wasn’t noted in the minutes.

2 See p28 for details of categories of risk.

3 For enquiries on this agenda please contact (havering.gov.uk) Minutes para 39

Havering’s Parking Permit Horror Show

In the Romford Recorder, 28^th April 2023, there was a headline about the doubling of the price of parking permits. Leadership hopefuls, Keith Prince and David Taylor, attended the photo opportunity. They smelt blood. They were right, there was a cock-up.

David Taylor has discovered the importance of political homework. He’d attended the Overview and Scrutiny meeting and nothing was said about doubling the price of parking permits. The following day they were doubled with, “…the agreement of the chairman.” Gillian Ford said, without irony, that, “…we instigated an inquiry.” That is: an inquiry into her own budget.

Football fans sing, “You Don’t Know What You’re Doing” at referees. If the public had been at the cabinet meeting, it would have been appropriate.

David Taylor was right. Cabinet didn’t know every aspect of their own budget. But the explanation of the cock-up is interesting.¹ Ray Morgon said it wasn’t his fault. “We are still looking at how this happened….” This translates as, “The officers run the council and tell us what’s happening afterwards.”

What’s interesting is the invisible Chris Wilkins.² He’s chair of finance. The revenue increase must have been discussed with him and he didn’t alert Morgon. This is remiss.

Officers aren’t politicians and are insensitive to the political implications of their proposals. Decision-making by officers is disastrous.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Havering’s Cabinet Meeting, 3 May 2023

As usual the meeting was dreary.³ Apart from Martin Goode asking detailed questions nothing happened.

David Taylor should have asked about the cost of the parking permit ‘U’ turn. If he had asked he’d have found out it was £250,000 or ten teacher assistants.

Notes

1 Havering Council reverses doubling of parking permit prices | Romford Recorder

2 Wilkins spent the entire cabinet meeting glued to his iPad, which gives a terrible impression, after what happened in the house of commons.

3 Webcast Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com)

Havering’s Cabinet ‘debates’ CCTV: 8th March, 2023

The estimated cost of this Upgrade and CCTV Relocation Proposal is £2.423m, to be funded from Capital and CIL monies.¹

As a minimum, a ‘debate’ about spending £5 million capital and £500,000+ revenue should include a discussion of effectiveness. Councillors were unaware there were questions to ask. They seemed equally unaware that officers had noted CCTV isn’t a legal obligation. The decision was made without considering the economics and effectiveness of CCTV.

HRA are obsessed with street care, so would £500,000 revenue help enhance meeting residents’ desire for clean and smooth pavements? What about £5M capital?² The three minute ‘debate’³ that was devoted to this critical issue is less than a new bike shed would get. But then they understand bike sheds. Don’t they? None of the economic points relating to an efficient use of council funds were mentioned. It was rubber stamped.

The Summary statement says CCTV makes, “Havering a safer place.”⁴The question is whether it will improve the current situation. Is there evidence CCTV makes a difference to levels of crime? Item 7, points 2-8,⁵is silent on whether CCTV successfully fights crime.

The CCTV programme is very expensive.^6,7 It is additional to £300,000+ pa for Havering’s five funded police officers.

Summary point 7 says, “…an effective and reliable CCTV system plays an essential part in assisting the Council to fulfil its duties under the Crime & Disorder Act 1998, which requires local authorities to work with the police and other partners to prevent and reduce crime and disorder”.⁴(my emphasis)

The police don’t think CCTV is that great.

“Overall, use of CCTV makes for a small, but statistically significant, reduction in crime, but this generalisation needs to be tempered by careful attention to (a) the type of crime being addressed and (b) the setting of the CCTV intervention. CCTV is more effective when directed at reducing theft of and from vehicles, while it has no impact on levels of violent crime.”⁸(my emphasis)

Havering’s CCTV has been superseded by 1,000s of private CCTV systems and 10s of 1,000s of smart phones. This cabinet ‘debate’ was abysmal.

Notes

1 (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Cabinet, 08/03/2023 19:30 (havering.gov.uk) Item 5

2 The 2023 Capital programme is interesting and demonstrates that £5M is significant Appendix 1 – Existing Capital Programme Detail.pdf (havering.gov.uk) The £5M just about doubles the road resurfacing budget from £6M to £11M. This would reduce the costs to residents paying for damaged vehicles.

3 Go to minutes 1-4 for the ‘debate’ Annotator Player (sonicfoundry.com) See also Report detail p21 para 9:1

3 p14

4 pp14-5

5 p17 para 2:7 main report £500,000 revenue

6 p18 para 6:3 main report £5,000,000 capital

7 p15 See Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) There is no obligation to fund surveillance equipment. This is noted at p20 para 8:1 There is, however, a duty to have a Crime and Disorder committee which Havering doesn’t have. Para 5:1c (a)

8 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-works/What-works-briefing-effects-of-CCTV-2013.pdf p2