Havering Residents'Association

Working for the people of Havering

Enter month to help you find the item
you are looking for and press the Find button.

In my new role as Leader of the Opposition and the Residents' Association, I attended the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth last month. There were many interesting and informative exhibits and speakers which I found most worthwhile. Among the more high profile speakers were Boris Johnson, David Cameron, Hazel Blears, Nick Clegg and Local Government Minister, John Healy.

For me Boris Johnson stole the show with a very entertaining speech which hit all the right notes regarding the importance of working together. In fact, the theme of working together at a local level and devolving power and responsibilities down to local councils and the communities was very much the ‘flavour of the month' in most of the speeches. This theme has been called ‘localism' and, for the Residents' Association, this is something we have believed in and practiced for many years.

It was interesting to listen to the big guns of national politics extol the virtues of local empowerment as if it is a new concept. Your Residents' Association has always taken its mandate from you, the resident, and it is you who sets the agenda for us to work to. We are not compelled to follow central party directives and diktaks from a remote central office and place the interests of residents first and foremost.

Through our regular newsletters, letters, phone calls and monthly forums we listen to your concerns, keep you informed and always seek to act in your best interests. This is not rocket science, it is ‘localism' in its truest sense and a principle we have held long before the mainstream parties jumped on the bandwagon and we will hold long after they have jumped off again.

Cllr Clarence Barrett

Some residents may have noticed an entry on their annual Council Tax leaflet which relates to a levy for Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. Whilst the levy has been in existence for around 42 years, some people may be puzzled as to the relevance of the payment.

The Lee Valley Regional Park stretched some 26 miles along the banks of the River Lee, from Ware in Hertfordshire, through Essex, to the Thames at East India Dock Basin.

The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority is an independent statutory public authority established by an Act of Parliament in 1966. The Authority is financed from the council tax payers of Hertfordshire, Essex and Greater London through an annual levy which, for 2007/08, equates to £3.04 per band D equivalent property, generating around £11.9m in total.

Making a link between contribution and value of amenity for residents has become almost meaningless over the years. For example, this year Havering will make a contribution of £266,000, Ealing £344,000, Bromley £402,000 whilst the residents of Essex and Hertfordshire will pay a levy of £1.571m and £1.320m respectively. But what relevance has the Park to the vast majority of these residents? It would be interesting to undertake an audit of visitors to the area to determine the spread of usage.

Whilst the Park is an important and valued open space in Greater London, rather than imposing a levy on 36 separate authorities, it would be better if central government made a single direct grant to Lee Valley. Even if this meant a corresponding reduction in overall revenue support grant to each authority, it would make more sense.

Following the 2012 Olympics, it is proposed that responsibility for the Olympic legacy is passed on to the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority

With the bill for the Games already three times its initial estimate (now £9.3bn), the capacity to increase the levy to fund the continued liabiltes of the facilites after 2012 remains a real possibilty. This is particulary pertinent as Londoners are already committed to a £625m contribution with an ‘assurance' that the ‘Olympic levy' will not be increased.

Bearing in mind that the actual levy imposed is only 66% of what could lawfully be charged (see the ‘Levying Bodies [General] Regulations 1992'), the potential to significantly increase the levy is possible.

The whole arrangement for funding the Lee Valley warrants a fresh examination and the potential to use the levy as a ‘trojan horse' for increased contributions to fund Olympic overspends must be resisted.

Cllr Clarence Barrett

A recent article in the Romford Recorder carried an item about crime in the borough and how the perception of crime appeared to differ from statistical analysis. The uncertainty owes much of its ambiguity to a system that has become fixated with statistics and performance indicators rather than focusing on the principal objective of maintaining law and order.

For many residents and businesses, the sterility and unreliability of statistics often means little as opposed to personal and collective experience.

It was interesting to read of a recent survey of police superintendents which revealed a worrying level of dissatisfaction with a culture dominated by performance management. It was noted that the increased level of bureaucracy is more likely to stifle innovation and prevents police from focusing on the safety of the communities they serve. Indeed, 71 per cent of superintendents said that the Home Office's reporting requirements have a negative impact on policing in their area.

When the reality of crime and the fear of crime are lost in a fog of statistics and performance indicators, the real challenge of maintaining law and order is in danger of being overshadowed by the need to satisfy targets and statistical returns.

The true measure of a public service is measured by the experience and
response of its users. There is little to be gained by imposing dozens of national targets that have little relevance to local community priorities.

This culture of performance management is not unique to the police but is prevalent throughout public services. In education excessive government targets are putting standards under threat. Primary school teachers spend nearly a day on week on paperwork rather than teaching children o read, write and count. Statistics published in the Teachers' Workload Diary Survey showed that it is only in English and maths that teachers spend more time on teaching than administration. Indeed, the former general secretary of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) said: “The governments obsession with target setting and performance tables has been most damaging in education”.

Even in business, target setting can have an adverse impact. Take the example of the Ford Motor Company who, a few years ago, experienced a downturn in business after a period of sustained growth. The answer was for Ford to maintain its market share and continue to sell record numbers of cars. Sales targets became the overriding fixation.

Ford did maintain its market share, but to do this they had to sell cars linked up to zero interest finance deals and similar schemes. As a result, every car sold made a deficit and Ford racked up losses of $5bn n the USA.

For many of us, a vacation abroad will inevitably mean arranging holiday insurance. Whilst this may be regarded as a minor inconvenience for most of us, for those who have suffered from serious illnesses, such as cancer, the process is far from simple and can be a very costly as well as upsetting experience.

The Macmillan Cancer Support organisation has launched a campaign, called ‘Recovered but not covered', to bring about fairness and compassion for people who are being treated for, or have suffered from serious illness, and are seeking travel insurance.

Research undertaken by the organisation reveal that 39% of people affected by cancer are quoted higher travel insurance premiums. A further 6% of people were refused insurance altogether. Faced with such high premiums, it comes as no surprise that 8% of people affected had resorted to travelling without any insurance.

Examples of sky high premiums abound - a woman who had breast cancer in 2000 and is now fully recovered was charged £100 more for a European multi-trip holiday insurance policy than the average cost. A terminally ill 22 year old woman from Scotland who was quoted £10,000 for a trip to Florida or the 65 year old former miner from Livingstone who, although recovered after cancer treatment, was quoted a premium which was equal to the cost of his European holiday.

Whilst it is understandable that insurers would be reluctant to offer cover to a person who is in a seriously ill state of health, particularly to destinations such as the USA, it seems very unlikely that someone who has been in remission from breast cancer for three years would suddenly develop a related bout of illness on a two week trip to the Costa del Sol.

As medical intervention, treatment and expertise advance, more and more people will be affected by this issue. In particular, it seems very unfair that so many people should have to deal with this after successful treatment and remission.

In addition is the upset caused by having to answer a stream of personal questions from potential insurers which can cause further distress, particularly when the condition has been successfully treated many years ago.

Whilst there is a clear responsibility on the part of insurance companies to mitigate and price risk accordingly, I believe there is also a responsibility to:

• Ensure that staff are adequately trained to deal sensitively with people affected by cancer
• Ensure that applications for insurance are assessed on a ‘case by case' basis rather than using a blanket policy
• Provide affordable and realistic insurance premiums for people who have had serious illness but are in remission
• Insurance companies recognise the significant advances made in treating cancer and calculate risk accordingly

To highlight this cause I have compiled an on-line petition to the Association of British Insurers, with a copy to the Prime Minister, setting out the following:

“We, the undersigned, call on the Association of British Insurers to provide a sympathetic and competitive service in respect of travel insurance premiums for people who have suffered with serious illness, such as cancer, and that those in long term remission are not unduly differentiated against. “

To view/sign the petition, please visit: http://www.gopetition.com/online/12395.html

If you have been affected by this issue or have had difficulties in obtaining travel insurance, the Macmillan Cancer Support would like to hear from you. They can be contacted on freephone 0808 500 800. e.mail insurance@macmillan.org.uk or visit the website at www.macmillan.org.uk/travelinsurance where you can take part in a survey.

Click here to sign the petition

The scourge of fly-tipping is sadly evident across the borough, whether it is Pike Lane in Upminster, Fir Tree Close in Romford or Gooshays Drive in Harold Hill, there are those in the community who confuse our streets, parks and open spaces with the local amenity site.

Fly tipping is illegal and is punishable under the Environmental Protection Act (1990) with a fine of up to £20,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. Recently the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act (2005) increased those penalties up to £50,000 and/or six months imprisonment in a Magistrates Court and face unlimited fines in higher courts, as well as community sentences of up to five years. However, of the 24,460 prosecutions carried out nationally in 2005, only 8 ended with a custodial sentence.

Figures obtained by the Countryside Commission (CA) reveal that, in 2005/06, there were 2.5 million incidents of fly tipping across the country which cost approximately £100 million to clear up.

Havering Council dealt with approximately 9,600 incidents of fly-tipping in 2005/06 at a cost of £529,783. During the same period, 3,550 warning letters were sent out and 92 fixed penalty fines issued. During 2006/07, the number of fly-tipping incidents reduced to 8,349. However, those figures pale away when compared with table toppers Liverpool (1,249,527) followed by Sheffield (161,898), LB Haringey (63,767) and LB Kensington and Chelsea (58,374).

Domestic fly-tipping makes up most of the cases but commercial fly-tipping can result in large deposits of building material in lanes and secluded spots.

Further figures from the CA reveal that the favourite spot for fly-tipping is back alleys (56%), with Highways (22%), Council land (15%), footpaths (5%) and private property (1%). The most popular item of fly-tipping is the ubiquitous black plastic bag (63%) followed by other household waste (15%), unidentified waste (7%), white goods (3%) and construction materials (2%).

A sizeable amount of domestic fly-tipping is made up of fridges, TVs, furniture and computers. New technology and aggressive competition in the market have driven down the price of electrical appliances. The days of putting a tumble dryer in for repair are numbered, with the option of simply purchasing a replacement the preferred, and more economical, alternative.

This gives rise to huge amounts of unwanted items. The council will collect and dispose of bulky household items for a standard charge of £16.75, but even this modest sum could be viewed as an obstacle to responsible disposal.

In addition, the trend towards fortnightly refuse collections may well encourage a greater propensity towards domestic fly tipping as people look to dispose of accumulated rubbish illegally.

The council can only clean up the mess as quickly as they can and cannot be held to blame. The fault belongs solely to the people who dump the rubbish in the first place!

Catching the culprits is notoriously difficult as it is such an easy offence to commit. Any clampdowns or installation of CCTV will help the situation but may have the tendency to simply move the problem elsewhere.

If you see someone fly-tipping, the following steps are recommended:

* Never approach the person as they may become violent
* Never touch any of the waste or open containers as they may contain hazardous material
* Get a description of any vehicles involved along the registration numbers, location and time
* Report the incident to the council on 01708 433175

As well as examining practical measures to tackle this type of anti-social behaviour it is important to raise the issue through schools, public meetings and newsletters. As well as relying on the council to clear up the mess, the community need to develop a robust and effective response to this undesirable practice.

In terms of practical measures, I recall many years ago the ‘rag & bone’ man (or Mr Steptoe) who would roam the streets clanging his bell to the cry of ‘any old iron’. He would provide a useful service to the community by taking away bulky unwanted items and turning a coin for his troubles.

Perhaps this service could be formally reintroduced in the 21st Century. If a dedicated service were to follow the street refuse collection route on a set day, say every other month, it would provide the opportunity for householders to dispose of bulky household items in a legitimate and convenient way simply by leaving the items on the border of their properties.

Clearly there is a funding issue as charging for the service would be self defeating. However, if there were less incidents of fly tipping across the borough as a result it would be a worthwhile investment.

3.5.07

Editorial by Cllr Clarence Barrett

For anyone buying a property in Havering, the prospect of paying Stamp duty is almost inescapable. Stamp duty was invented by the Dutch in 1624 and first levied in the UK in 1694 by William and Mary. Like income tax, which was introduced to pay for the war against Napoleon, stamp duty proved to be such a nice little earner for the government that it was never repealed. Stamp duty is now the oldest tax administered by the Board of Inland Revenue.

While the tax was initially targeted against the wealthy, like inheritance tax, it has now become a tax on virtually everyone. The government raise about £4.6 billion a year (enough to pay for the Government's overseas aid budget) through this tax and at the last budget the Chancellor graciously raised the lower threshold from £60,000 to £125,000. Of course this will make no difference to people living in London and the South East as you would only get a small shed for less than that price. For example, last year London and the South East generated £1.83 billion in stamp duty while North East England produced £70m.

The existing bands are - Up to £125,000 = nil, £125,001 to £250,000 = 1%, £250,001 to £500,000 = 3% and £500,001 plus = 4%.
For the government this is simply a very easy tax raising device and as long as the property market remains relatively stable, there is little chance of any radical reform. Over the last ten years the government has seen receipts from stamp duty increase from £700 million to the current level of £4.6 billion!

But why should all the duty go to the Chancellor? If a proportion went directly to the Local Authorities in which the duty was raised, it would help alleviate the financial pressures on increasing rates of Council Tax.

If we take a look at Havering, there were 4,672 property sales in 2004 raising some £12.7m for the Treasury. Based on those figures, if the 1% duty was shared 0.75% for the Treasury and 0.25% for the local Council, and the 3% figure shared 2.75% and 0.25% respectively, it would equate to approximately £2.4 million for the Local Authority.

This would go a long way towards keeping down our council tax and providing funds for much needed local services.
To this end, I have launched a petition which reads as follows:

‘Each year billions of pounds is raised through stamp duty (£3.4 billion in 2005/06), which is basically a property tax, but it all goes straight to the Treasury.

If a proportion went directly to the Local Authorities in which the duty was raised, it would help alleviate the financial pressures on increasing rates of Council Tax.’

“We, the undersigned, petition the Chancellor of the Exchequer to divert a proportion of the £4.6 billion raised annually through residential stamp duty directly to the Local Authorities in which the duty is raised. “

If you would like to support the petition, please click here.

March 2007

Editorial by Cllr Clarence Barrett

What do David Bowie, Nigella Lawson, Dawn French, George Melly, Alastair Sim and LS Lowry all share in common? They have all snubbed the honours system by refusing knighthoods and other awards. In fact there are over 300 ‘well known names’ who have turned down the accolade.

The UK honours list is drawn up the government, although personal applications are welcome, which is then presented to the Queen for approval before the award is bestowed upon the lucky recipients at a formal ‘investiture’ service.

While the current ‘cash for peerages’ scandal is unedifying, it is certainly not new. Back in 1920s, Maundy Gregory, allegedly supported by Lloyd George, openly sold honours. This resulted in the convicted fraudster Sir Joseph Robinson receiving a peerage in 1922 for £30,000.

But how relevant is the current honours system in today’s society? Readers may recall that earlier this year, the entire England Cricket Team were awarded an MBE each for winning the Ashes. While it was certainly a sporting achievement, as was the England Rugby World Cup winning side of 2003 (who received similar awards), but is the degree of recognition appropriate for a one-off victory or should it be for more sustained levels of success?

Leafing through the OBEs and MBEs of the 2006 New Years Honours List there are a number of inclusions which beg the question - why? For example, there are MBE’s for the manager of the Highways Agency, a Grade B2 officer in the Ministry of Defence, a Grade 6 officer in the Pensions Service and a Press Officer for the Prime Ministers Office. There are OBEs for an Admin. Officer for the Child Support Agency, a vehicle electrician at the Ministry of Defence and the Head Housekeeper of the House of Lords.

What they all share in common is that they have been awarded gongs for simply doing the job they are paid for!

At the other end of the spectrum there are some worthy inclusions, such as Captain John Seymour for services to the RAF Benevolent Fund, Mrs Heather Chapman for services to the community as a Neighbourhood Watch Volunteer, Mrs Edna Ainge for services to disabled people on the Isle of Man and Mohammed Sabir for charitable services in West Yorkshire.

I would like to see this outdated system completely overhauled and drastically reduced to perhaps three levels of recognition. This could be based upon the existing Royal Victorian Medal, which awards a gold, silver and bronze grade of merit.

Awards should be for exceptional and sustained public service which is measured beyond reasonable expectation. This should not include news readers who simply read the news, music artistes who make shed loads of money by making music or by actors who act. In other words, awards for doing what you are paid to do simply cheapens the whole process and turns any lingering integrity into farce.

But what do you think? Our January mini poll (see home page) asks:

With the announcement of the New Years Honours List, is the award still relevant in today’s society? Do you think the honours system should be:

a) Scrapped
b) Greatly Reduced in terms of awards
c) Kept as it is

Why not share your thoughts by e.mailing me at Have Your Say.

30.12.06

Despite calls to scrap the Dartford Crossing Toll and allow vehicles to move freely across the river, the government have turned the opposite way and now propose to increase the charge from £1.00 to £1.50 as from early 2008.

Many motorists will be familiar with the grinding congestion associated with the Dartford Crossing. Each day 145,000 vehicles use the crossing generating around £66 million a year. After operating costs are deducted (£16m) the government then banks some £50 million which then disappears into the national transport plan.

The charge was introduced in 1963 and was designed to pay for the construction costs of the tunnels and latterly the bridge. These costs were finally paid off in 2002 and the legal authority to charge a toll expired in April 2003. However, the government decided to continue with a ‘congestion charge' using the bizarre logic that the fee somehow restricts the number of vehicles that would ‘help ensure the smooth flow of traffic through the crossing'.

It is evident to anyone who has used the crossing that the congestion, which can stretch for many miles on either side of the crossing, is entirely due to the effect of the tollbooths themselves.

It is somewhat ironic that a congestion charge is imposed on vehicles when it is the collection of the charge that is causing the congestion!

The massive delays not only add to business costs, but also increase pollution levels. While investment in environmentally friendly methods of transportation grows, the exhaust fumes emitted by thousands of vehicles needlessly waiting in line only causes further environmental damage.

In a bizarre twist of logic, the government suggest that the increased charge may relieve congestion and persuade motorists to consider other routes or alternative methods of transportation - but if these were viable options then motorists would be doing it now! The simple reality is that motorists use the Dartford Crossing because there is no reasonable alternative!

When the current management arrangements expire in 2008, full consideration should be given to doing away with the ‘toll’ altogether rather than increasing the charge.

A LOTTERY OF TV QUIZ CHANNELS

By Cllr Clarence Barrett
Editor

For anyone who has flicked through the digital TV channels, particularly late at night, the increasing number of interactive ‘Quiz Channel’ TV shows would not have gone unnoticed.

With 11 quiz channels to choose from, around a million people viewers watch the shows which attract about 20,000 calls a day.

The basis of the show is very simple, a seemingly easy question or sum is shown on the screen, accompanied by a presenter pleading with viewers to text or call lest they miss out on the opportunity to win a big money prize. Indeed, prizes can be anything up to £100,000. Often the question is so meaningless that the range of possible right answers is endless. Viewers who wish to take part then call a premium-rate telephone number, costing somewhere between 60p and £1.50 for a flat rate call, and are charged whether or not they get on air to answer the question.

After paying a third party to provide the interactive service and deducting prize money, the broadcaster then keeps most of the money from the calls. With revenue from advertising drying up for many broadcasters, the emergence of the quiz channel is a great salvation. For example, ITV play, which was launched on April 19 2006 and one of the leading quiz channels, produced a £9 million profit in it’s first four months of operation.

The controversial element surrounding this issue is what is the difference between these TV quiz channels and a lottery? Well, quite a lot really. A lottery requires a licence and must give 20 per cent of revenue generated to charity.

Whilst a lottery consists of three elements, that is payment, prize and chance, prize competitions are those that depend, at least in part, on the exercise of skill, judgement or knowledge. It should be demonstrated that the level of difficulty should be such that it would deter a significant proportion of people from entering the competition.

The current format for the interactive TV Quiz is now common right across mainstream television from GMTV to Sports programmes. Examples of the typical question are not hard to find. Take the following conundrum posed on the Richard & Judy show - Where does the rain in Spain mainly fall? a) on the plain; b) on the train; or c) down the drain? Or this poser, as featured on GMTV - When would you usually eat Weetabix? a) breakfast; b) lunch; or c) dinner?

Clearly, the degree of difficulty attached to these questions is somewhere around the complete imbecile level.

The bottom line is that the quizzes are so easy that they are in fact a lottery – to which lottery regulations and licences should apply.

The Gambling Commission is currently looking at this issue with a consultation document named ‘Prize Competitions and Free Draws’. Indications are that, from September 2007, new legislation will toughen up these loose interpretations.

What do you think? E.mail your views to Have Your Say.

Cllr Clarence Barrett

ABOLISHING PRESCRIPTION CHARGES
By Cllr Clarence Barrett

The issue of prescription charges and the existing set of exemptions have attracted much debate in Parliament and across the NHS.

The current prescription charge is set at £6.65 per item. For those who may need more than 5 items in 4 months or more than 14 items in 12 months, the cost of prescription prepayment certificates are £34.65 (4 months) and £95.30 (12 months).

However, while 85 per cent of prescriptions are issued free of charge, the arbitrary and iniquitous system of exemptions mean that many people on low incomes are compelled to pay while others with much higher earnings do not.

For example, all men and women over 60, regardless of income, are exempt from payment. However, many of those on incapacity benefit, by definition likely to be heavy users of prescriptions, must pay. The system can throw up a scenario where a 62 year old multimillionaire is entitled to free prescriptions yet a 24-year old with a low income just above the threshold for free prescriptions has to pay.

Looking at the list of medical exemptions, it includes conditions such as epilepsy, some forms of diabetes and myxoedema but excludes conditions such as multiple sclerosis, cancer and hepatitis C.

A recent survey commissioned by Citizens Advice showed that up to 750,000 people a year were going without prescriptions because they could not afford them. If patients are avoiding prescribed medication, it can only lead to a much greater long-term cost to the NHS.

In proportion to the billions poured into the NHS, prescription charges are expected to raise some £430 million in 2006/07. If we look at Wales, the current charge is £3 per item with a commitment to abolish all charges by 2007. The Scottish Executive is undertaking a review of prescription charges and the results of a recent consultation will be made available in the near future.

While there is an argument that lost revenue and a potential drop in over the counter sales may impact upon budgets, this needs to be balanced against a greater number of people receiving the right medication at the right time, thus avoiding an unnecessary escalation of the respective condition which may result in hospital admission and extensive treatment.

A recently published report by Derek Wanless called ‘Securing our future health’, states: “The present structure of exemptions for prescription charges is not logical, nor rooted in the principles of the NHS. If related issues are being considered in future, it is recommended that the opportunity should be taken to think through the rationale for the exemption policy.”

Access to the NHS should be free at the point of delivery and no one should be deterred from obtaining necessary medication on the grounds of cost.

Cllr Clarence Barrett
August 2006

June 2006
Editorial Commen

tRESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN OUR COURTS

By Cllr Clarence Barrett

Having served for five years as a Justice of the Peace in a London based magistrates court, I have some empathy with the current debate regarding the sentencing of offenders and the early release of prisoners.

The perception that Judges and magistrates have a free hand when passing sentence is wholly misleading. The judiciary must follow complicated advice from the Government’s Sentencing Guidelines Panel and impose punishment accordingly. Under these guidelines, offenders are often eligible for parole after serving half their sentence. This is in addition to a discount of up to one third if they pleaded guilty early in the legal proceedings and time off for good behaviour.

Whilst the media tend to paint judges and magistrates as liberal ‘softies’, it must be remembered that the courts are not allowed to bind the parole board, which makes its decisions on an independent basis.

However, public confidence in the criminal justice system must also extend to the parole board. Since 2000, fifty three criminals jailed for life are now back on the streets. That means, despite being sentenced to a life tariff, they all served less than six years. A Home Office Minister defended the revelation by saying: “Their risk to the public was acceptable. They had served the period of imprisonment necessary for the purposes of retribution and deterrence.”

From a public perspective, these criminals were convicted and sentenced before a court of law and the public is right to expect that the sentence passed should be served in full.

The public need to be assured that justice is dealt with firmly, fairly and robustly, with a far greater degree of transparency than there is at present. A serious review of how the sentencing and parole framework works needs to be undertaken and the views of the public given greater consideration.

Whilst there is also a pressing need to focus on genuine and effective reformative measures for offenders, the following four point plan would set out a reasonable starting point for any review regarding sentencing:

1) Abolish the automatic entitlement to a discount for a timely guilt plea. It is quite disproportionate to reward an early plea of guilt with up to a third off a potential sentence. With greater availability of DNA and CCTV based evidence, there is no need to use a ‘reduced sentence’ as a bargaining tool.

2) A jail sentence passed is what is served. Public confidence in the criminal justice system is greatly undermined when offenders sentenced to, say, six years are let out after just two or three years. If life actually means 12 years or 15 years, then sentence to 12 years or 15 years accordingly. The clarity needed in this aspect of sentencing is very important in gaining public confidence. In addition, the added pressure on the probation service is severely stretched trying to cope with early releases and effective reformation difficult to apply. Reduction on sentences should only apply where the offender has already spent time in custody (for the same matter) leading up to the conviction. There should be no early release for good behaviour, but time added on for bad behaviour.

3) A greater use of restorative sentencing, where the victim is fully compensated for loss or injury by the perpetrator, even if the timescales are lengthy.

4) Minimise the use of concurrent sentencing. Where an offender has been convicted of several different crimes, they are often sentenced as if they were convicted of one and the other offences just tacked on as a gesture. In terms of sentencing, unless the crimes are of very similar nature, each offence and ensuing conviction should be treated as a separate matter.

June 2006

May 2006

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OR THE COUNCIL TAXPAYER - WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?

By Cllr Clarence Barrett

If there is one thing the government is good at, it is the ability to devise ever more confounding means of regulating, measuring and assessing local councils. In recent years the amount of central government regulation has increased dramatically, to such an extent that there is a perceptible shift between being accountability to the electorate or being answerable to the edicts of central government.

Central government spend around £12 billion per year on regulating our lives and businesses, with approximately £2.5 billion being spent on civil servants to dream up ever more performance indicators, directives, inspections and league tables for local authorities to abide by.

The model by which councils are now judged by is the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA). For the uninitiated (and indeed the initiated), this is an impenetrable web of inspections, assessments and judgements that eventually lead to star rating for a council.

With the evaluation exercise becoming more and more complicated, the focus becomes ever more driven by assessment rather than improvement. This culture simply encourages councils to comply rather than innovate.

While there is certainly a need for inspections, perhaps based on areas of national concern, it is local people who should form the jury when it comes to judging the performance of the local authority. One of the difficulties with the current system is that the government has become the customer rather than the resident.

On top of the £2.5 billion spent by central government in its pursuit to regulate local authorities, is the cost of complying with the requirements. Although no firm figures exist, it is estimated to be around £5 billion.

In Towns Halls across the country, whole departments are emerging to specifically to deal with CPA and other monitoring requirements, consultants and agency staff can command handsome packages in providing expert advice while chief officers and senior staff are continually sidetracked from their principal duties in order to fathom out the latest government directive.

Even local government leaders appear united in their approach to this issue, a well drafted letter appeared in The Times (22.5.06) from Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, Chairman of the Local Government Association and the leaders of the principal political groups which implores central government to cut red tape and allow people a greater say in how their council is run, which would lead to a more visible and accountable degree of local leadership.

A culture with an over emphasis on monitoring and assessment can only stifle local councils and serve to distance local authorities from the very people they are set up to serve.

What do you think? Send your views to Have Your Say.

24.5.06

April 2006

TACKLING VOTER APATHY

With the local elections taking place in May, the issue of low turnout and voter apathy will once again be debated.

Even with postal voting and countless campaigns undertaken by the electoral commission, turnout at the 2005 General Election was only 62%. Not quite as bad as the 2001 General Election, which saw a record low of 59.4%, but not up to the 77.7% in 1992 or 71.3% in 1997.

Turnout at local elections are generally much lower. Average turnout in 1994 was 41.5%, dropping to 28.8% in 1998 and rising again to 35% in 2002, probably due to more options for postal voting.

There are generally two schools of thought regarding low turnout:

a) That the electorate has little or no faith in elected representatives and voting is simply a waste of time.

b) Non-voting is a perfectly rational response where the ruling party holds a huge majority and services are broadly acceptable.

I tend to believe that voters take a very reasoned approach in that if they feel their voice will not be heard they will not participate.

Electoral reform may hold the key to greater engagement, particularly if some kind of proportional representation system were to be adopted.

This is perfectly illustrated by looking at the results of the last General Election. Of all votes cast Labour polled 35.3%, Conservative 32.3% and Lib Dems 22.1%. In terms of actual seats won, Labour secured 356, Conservative 198 and Lib Dems 62. It is quite clear that the total of votes cast bear little relation to the balance of seats won.

Compulsory voting, as conducted in Australia, may guarantee a higher turnout but it does not guarantee a greater degree of involvement in the political representation. It is better for people to be persuaded to vote through informed opinion and choice rather than forcing them into the polling booth under pain of penalty.

However, while political parties expend so much energy, time and resources in attacking each other, the public feels a greater sense of disengagement from the political process.

The last General Election saw a Labour poster campaign aimed solely at denigrating Michael Howard by depicting him as a pig - how would this make anyone vote for Labour? All that it could achieve is to deter people from voting at all!

The posturing, back-biting, recriminations and campaigns for personal glory which are all too evident in local and national politics, send a very negative message to the electorate.

Numerous initiatives, such as voting over the internet /phone or extending the polling period over several days, to improve turn-out are regularly trotted out but they will make only minimal impact.

The real challenge lies in convincing the electorate that the party and the elected individual really do listen, really do act and really do have the interests of the community close to their heart.

I believe that the independent representative, unfettered by party whips or central office directives, can offer the electorate something closer to the true spirit of political representation – putting the interests of the electorate first and foremost.

3.4.06

SUPPORTING THE GLA EMPIRE

Many people may agree that the increasing burden of council tax owes no favours to the spiralling cost of supporting the GLA (Greater London Assembly) precept.

For an average band D property in Havering, the GLA component of the £1,328 council tax bill in 2005/06 is £255 (19%). In terms of annual increases, the figures below set out what looks like the inflation rate of a South American economy - but is in fact the increases of the GLA precept since it’s creation in 2000:

2000/01 £123
2001/02 £151 +22.7%
2002/03 £174 +15.2%
2003/04 £224 +29.1%
2004/05 £241 +7.6%
2005/06 £255 +5.8%
2006/07 £297? +16.6% (Yet to be finalised)

The proposed increase for 2006/07 includes, of course, the £20 (Band D) contribution from all London council taxpayers towards the 2012 Olympic Games. Curiously, I cannot recall any consultation with Londoners regarding the imposition of this levy, nor can I find any evidence of tangible benefits to Havering in respect of the £20.4 million we will be stumping up over the next 12 years. In addition, I cannot find any justification in charging Londoners even more on their council tax while London businesses – who stand to make a great deal more from the Games than the average resident – will pay no extra levy on their business rate.

Mini Poll

Our mini-poll for February asks: From April 2006, Londoners will be charged £20 per year (Band D) for at least 12 years to help fund the 2012 Olympics. Is it fair to charge just Londoners or should the funding be spread across the country? I await the response with interest!

Looking at the GLA budgets over the last few years, the running costs of the Mayors Office have increased from £9.5 million in 2004/05 to £13.9 million this year.

The lavish new City Hall, built at a cost of £43 million, is now home to around 680 staff - 430 more than when he was first elected in 2000.

Many Londoners may question the wisdom of spending £3.8m a year on that wonderfully impartial newspaper ‘The Londoner’.

Building an empire

What many residents, particularly in the outer boroughs, must be wondering is ‘what do we get for our money?’, ‘Is it good value?’, ‘Do we have a choice anyway?’.

Looking at the budget consultation document for the 2006/07 GLA precept (which puts forward a 16.6% increase), there are budget growth items of £800,000 for the Mayors Office, £700,000 for Policy and Partnership and £300,000 for corporate services – what are all these about? There is a distinct impression that residents are paying more and more to support the building of an empire.

With much of the GLA precept going towards policing (about 75%), the roll out of the neighbourhood police teams across all 625 wards in the capital is at least a tangible sign of progress, but the programme is now to be phased in over a two year period.

What do readers think? Does the GLA represent good value for Money? Are we getting a fair deal in the outer boroughs? E.mail your views to Have Your Say.

January 2006
Editorial Comment

By Clarence Barrett
Editor

WHO NEEDS MOTORWAY ADVERTS?

Anyone driving along the M25, or indeed any major route, will have noticed the emergence of advertising hoardings strapped to lorries and trailers strategically placed along the roadside in fields. Not only do these hoardings cast an ugly blot on the countryside but pose a dangerous distraction to motorists.

Evidence gathered by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) indicates that there are now around 900 of these hoarding scattered along the 2,673 miles of motorways and major roads in England.

Marketing firms and websites are springing up in abundance offering advertising space on trailers, quite often with generous sums available to the owners of farmer’s fields. Big names such as Tesco and McDonalds have been known to resort to such advertising methods, and with a potential to reach around 200,000 passing motorists every day there is not a shortage of commercial interest.

In a poll of 556 motorists undertaken by motorinsurance.co.uk, 60% of drivers were in favour of banning motorway advertisements believing them to be a dangerous distraction to motorists. Only 13% believed that the advertising hoardings were acceptable.

While driving along at 70mph, motorists will expect to see advisory and directional signs. However, roadside advertising hoardings are specifically designed to grab the attention of the motorist away from what they are doing to convey a particular message, hence creating a potentially dangerous distraction.

There is a common view that as the hoardings are placed on wheels, they are deemed to be mobile and therefore exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission. However, where a vehicle is stationary for some time that exemption is not applicable.

While planning authorities already have the powers to deal with the problem, the overall lack of motivation or funding (or both) creates a lack of consistency in applying enforcement.

If nothing is done to curb the spread of this practice, how long before the hoardings become animated with flashing neon lights and fluorescent arrows?

For further information about the CPRE campaign visit www.cpre.org.uk or call 020 7981 2856.

To see if the motorinsurance poll is indicative of opinion, our January mini-poll will be asking – Should roadside advertising hoardings on major routes and motorways be banned? The result will be reported in early February.

DARTFORD CROSSING TOLLS STILL RINGING

Many Havering residents will be familiar with the grinding congestion associated with the Dartford Crossing. Each day 145,000 vehicles use the crossing generating around £66 million a year. After operating costs are deducted (£16m) the government banks £50 million which then disappears into the national transport plan.

The charge was introduced in 1963 and was designed to pay for the construction costs of the tunnels and latterly the bridge. These costs were finally paid off in 2002 and the legal authority to charge a toll expired in April 2003.

Congestion Charge

However, the government decided to continue with a ‘congestion charge' using the bizarre logic that the fee restricts the number of vehicles which would ‘help ensure the smooth flow of traffic through the crossing'.

It is evident to anyone who has used the crossing that the congestion, which
can stretch for many miles on either side of the crossing, is entirely due
to the effect of the toll booths themselves.

It is somewhat ironic that a congestion charge is imposed on vehicles when
it is the collection of the charge which is causing the congestion!

Massive Delays

The massive delays not only add to business costs, but also increase pollution levels. While investment in environmentally friendly methods of transportation grows, the exhaust fumes emitted by thousands of vehicles needlessly waiting in line only causes further environmental damage.

The current management arrangements expire in 2008 when full consideration should be given to doing away with the charge altogether and to allow traffic to move freely over the crossing.

What do you think? E.mail your views to Have Your Say..

December 2005

November 2005
Editorial Comment

STAMP DUTY BONANZA!

For anyone buying a property in Havering, the prospect of paying Stamp duty is almost inescapable.

Stamp duty was invented by the Dutch in 1624 and first levied in the UK in 1694 by William and Mary. Like income tax, which was introduced to pay for the war against Napoleon, stamp duty proved to be such a nice little earner for the government that it was never repealed. Stamp duty is now the oldest tax administered by the Board of Inland Revenue.

While the tax was initially targeted against the wealthy, like inheritance tax, it has now become a tax on everyone.

The government raise about £3.8 billion a year (enough to pay for the Government's overseas aid budget) through this tax and at the last budget the Chancellor graciously raised the lower threshold from £60,000 to £120,000. Of course this will make no difference to people living in London and the South East as you would only get a small shed for less than that price. For example, last year London and the South East generated £1.83 billion in stamp duty while North East England produced £70m.

The existing bands are - Up to £120,000 = nil, £120,001 to £250,000 = 1%, £250,001 to £500,000 = 3% and £500,001 plus = 4%.

For the government this is simply a very easy tax raising device and as long as the property market remains relatively stable, there is little chance of any radical reform. Over the last ten years the government has seen receipts from stamp duty increase from £465 million to the current level of £3.8 billion!

But why should all the duty go to the Chancellor? The tax is based on properties and surely there is some argument that the local authority is entitled to a proportion of that revenue?

If we take a look at Havering, there were 4,672 property sales in 2004 raising some £12.7m for the Treasury. Based on those figures, if only one quarter of one per cent were redirected to the Council, it would equate to approximately £2.4 million.

This would go a long way towards keeping down our council tax and providing funds for much needed local services.

What do readers think? Send your views to Have Your Say.

November 2005

November 2005
Editorial Comment

TACKY TV TURN OFF!

For those who are familiar with the TV comedy character Alan Partridge, you will recall how he used to dream up the most bizarre programmes in an effort to ‘make it big’ on television. Of course none of his ideas were taken up and he got nowhere fast in a comical fashion. However, I thought Alan Partridge must have struck lucky last week (27/9) as I settled down to watch an ITV programme called ’50 Shots That Shook The World’.

The aim was to show 50 events recorded on camera that made a some kind of impact on the world – fair enough, promised to be quite interesting. Among the more prominent examples were the 1966 World Cup Winning Team, the freeing of Nelson Mandela, First Man on the Moon, 9/11 and so on.

In what order these events were listed was subject to canvassed public opinion, which was reasonable enough. However, what the programme descended into in order to separate the top 10 was shameful. In something out of ‘I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here’, the viewing public were invited to phone-in or text their No1 chice. Each contender had an advocate and the similarity to the programme ‘Restoration’ was sadly striking.

Top of the Pops Tragedy

Whilst there is no problem in inviting votes for things like sporting events or movies, there is a real problem when it comes to voting for ‘The Second Plane that hit the Twin Towers on 9/11’, ‘The assassination of JFK’ or ‘The Boxing Day Tsunami’.

The big, and hugely obvious, concern is packaging the events that saw nearly 3,000 people die on 9/11 and 250,000 perish in the Boxing Day Tsunami, into some kind of some kind of ‘Top of the Pops’ programme which pursued some ill conceived notion that the ‘voting public’ should be offered the opportunity (at the price of a phone call or text message) to vote one tragedy more ‘earth shaking’ than another.

The whole thing could easily have been avoided if the ‘phone in to vote’ element of the programme were left out. I’m not sure if I was more surprised to see a seasoned and universally admired presenter such as Trevor MacDonald front the show, or the fact that 200,000 people actually called in to cast their vote!

The influence of TV over our lives can be an important factor in shaping our views. TV, along with the newspapers and the internet provides most of the information which we then process into opinion and judgement.

Only a few weeks ago, the saturation coverage of the fuel protest escalated into a full blown crisis as overblown media coverage almost guaranteed the ensuing ‘petrol madness’ that led to empty forecourts which was so reminiscent of 2000.

Bullying Chefs

There are many parallels between the issues that society is trying to address, either through legislation or educational initiatives, and counter productive TV programmes that glorify the very behaviour we are trying to tackle.

The latest rash of ‘chef’ programmes, such as ‘Hells Kitchen’, appears to condone the incredible level of bullying that goes on in the kitchen. While the government, schools, councils and parents devise strategies and policies to stamp out ‘bullying’, these type of programmes simply portray a work environment where it is acceptable – it is not.

The influence of TV in society is immense. With the ever growing number of channels the competition to attract viewers is enormous and the tendency to show more and more bizarre and sensational programmes becomes more evident.

However, TV companies would argue that they are simply responding to demand. Looking at the number of ‘supermarket’ channels that may well be true, but the urge to create demand is equally applicable and with that comes responsibility.

There are, of course, standards and regulations which ensure that really offensive programmes never make it to our TV screens, but this does not take into account the sheer tackiness and questionable basis of some programmes.

Whilst we cannot legislate against ‘tackiness’, I suppose we always have the option of simply turning it off!

September 2005 Editorial Comment

COUNTING THE COST OF NO MOTOR INSURANCE

According to the RAC Foundation around 5% of all motorists now drive uninsured on our roads. This equates to some 1.2 million motorists who do not have car insurance.

With accidents involving uninsured drivers costing around £500m a year, it is worrying that the trend appears to be on an upward spiral. Figures released from the Home Office indicate a 20% rise in uninsured motorists from 2001 to 2003.

While motorists without insurance are more likely not to have an MOT or excise duty, they are also more likely to be involved in hit and runs, ten times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving and nine times more likely to be involved in an accident. Indeed, RAC research shows that one in ten drivers have been involved in an accident with an uninsured driver.

£30 per year additional premium

In terms of cost, there is a compulsory levy on all motor insurance policies of 2.5% which funds the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. On an average comprehensive policy of £750 this equates to an additional £19 per year. Add in other claims which are dealt with by insurers directly and the total cost to the law abiding policy holder for uninsured drivers is around £30 per year.

With young people more likely to drive without insurance, supplementary initiatives to make car insurance more affordable should be pursued, such as discounts for extra driving tuition or pay as go schemes.

With young drivers facing an insurance bill of anything from £800 to £2,000 per annum, the incentive to offset the risk of being caught and face a £200 fine with three penalty points against such enormous premiums is persuasive to some.

Insurance database scheme

However, the greatest tool in dealing with the problem is the emergence of the Motor Insurance Database. From October 2005, insurers and brokers will have to report details of new policies or changes to the database within two weeks or face a fine of £250,000.

A camera network which recognises car number plates will link in with the insurance database and provide police with immediate information as to the insurance status of each vehicle. The police will then be able to respond directly, which includes powers to confiscate and crush uninsured vehicles

The scheme is scheduled to start next month and will, initially, target known hotspots such as Manchester, Liverpool and London.

If the scheme is a success, it will be interesting to see if our insurance premiums will reduce accordingly?

THE RISE AND RISE OF THE BLAME CULTURE

Have you ever been stopped in a busy shopping area by someone in a bib and clipboard asking “have you had any accidents in the last three years?”, if the answer is yes the potential to claim large sums in compensation is enthusiastically explained and the hook line declared that the whole process is on a ‘no win , no fee’ basis – how can you go wrong?

Clearly we live in an increasingly litigious society. The desire to extend accountability is welcome, but the need to convert it into cashable sums sets a dangerous precedent.

The manifestation of the compensation culture in Britain is perhaps best typified by the ‘no-win, no-fee’ system. This was introduced in 2000 by Lord Woolf with the genuine intention of allowing people who are less well off being able to sue for compensation and also to reduce the legal aid bill. However, what has emerged is a whole industry of ‘ambulance chasers’ which has seen a boom in claims against the government.

Daytime TV

Viewers watching daytime TV are bombarded with adverts for 'no win, no fee'
compensation claims, with exuberant and smiling 'victims' holding up cheques for substantial sums explaining how easy it all was. What they neglect to tell you is that the fee payable is somewhere between 33% and 40% of any award.

Expectations are raised, often unrealistically, and the promise of a fat cheque sets off many people on frivolous or false claims. According to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, bogus claims are costing local authorities an estimated £117 million a year.

Last year David Davis MP, a candidate for the conservative party leadership, highlighted the case of Manchester City Council where the budget for pavement repairs is smaller that the money it spends fighting compensation claims. In 2003 schools paid out £200 million in claims while the NHS paid £500m in medical negligence claims, the figure for 1990 stood at £50m.

Pancake Race

Many will recall the Havering Council policy of cutting down fruit fall trees on the highways lest a claim for compensation is made. The policy, now withdrawn, was made all the more bizarre because there had never been a single claim. The national papers seized upon the story with relish, but there are many more cases of baffling over-reactions adopted by councils up and down the country. For example:

• A primary school in Devon had its insurance premium for its pancake race raised from £75 to £280, and was told that 25 marshals should monitor the 32 children competing
• A village in Gloucestershire had to take down the children’s swings as they faced the sun and feared children would be blinded
• A London primary school banned children from making daisy chains in case they picked up germs

It is, of course, entirely sensible that equipment and services used by the public meet reasonable standards of safety, but it can be deeply damaging to seek blame and redress for every possible mishap.

Reining in the blame culture

But what can be done to rein in the blame culture? Perhaps the following ideas may help -

• Vigorous prosecution of people making false claims
• Limit claim entitlements to a reasonable level
• Compensation lawyers get a fixed fee as opposed to a percentage
• Strictly control, but not ban, TV adverts and street canvassers which encourage litigation with a requirement that the scale of fees is clearly stated

Not only has blame and subsequent compensation become a part of daily life in the UK, but it is positively encouraged by the ambulance chasing ‘no-win, no-fee’ solicitors. In addition, the ever increasing barrage of EU regulations that hamstring our schools, councils and leisure centres provide even more cotton wool for us to be wrapped up in.

Accountability is fine, but we need to be careful that in our eagerness to apportion blame we forget how to learn from the concept of positive risk.

What do you think? E.mail your views to Have Your Say.

July 2005 Editorial Comment

SHOULD HOSPICES RELY ON CHARITY?

In recent years I have come across many people who have had some contact with the hospice movement and, without exception, the lasting impression has been one of appreciation, gratitude and respect. Hospices provide invaluable care and support to some 250,000 patients a year – but should their continued existence be reliant on charity?

Across the UK there are 253 hospice units, including 33 for children and three exclusively for people with HIV/AIDS. No charge is made for hospice care and the movement depends upon the input of some 98,000 volunteers to function effectively.

About 80% of hospice care is provided by local charities rooted in the communities they serve, the remaining 20% is provided in NHS run hospices and hospices run by the Marie Curie Cancer Care and Sue Ryder Care.

Even though investment in the NHS is running at a record high, the matter of adequate funding for hospice care remains a major issue.

For those charity based hospices the government provide about 35% funding with the balance raised through donations, legacies and from a vast range of community fundraising activities.

While it is bad enough that adult hospices receive only 35 per cent funding from the government, it is surely an absolute disgrace that children’s hospices receive only 5 per cent! In monetary terms, the state benefits from the kindness, generosity and humanity of people willing to give their time, money and commitment into providing an essential service for those with life limiting illnesses.

REJECTED BY LOTTERY

The continuation of this essential service then depends on fund raising events, bequests and voluntary contributions to make up the huge difference. Even the availability of lottery funding cannot be counted upon, in 2002 St Francis Hospice submitted a £500,000 lottery application for help towards new £1.7 million family rooms, therapy rooms and offices - it was rejected.

Last year Vincent Cable, MP for Twickenham, raised the issue of hospice funding in parliament, and in particular the iniquitous difference in funding levels between children’s and adult hospices.

It is an issue that should be a concern to us all, what other essential service would rely so much on charity to exist?

Would we rely on car boot sales to supplement the running costs of the Ministry of Defence? Or organise a tombola to support the Foreign Office? Perhaps we should have sponsored sky-dive to support the Inland Revenue!

It is quite remarkable that our government can find £1.3 billion a year to pay for management consultants in Whitehall, or can spend £1 billion on tackling truancy - but make no impact. Surely it is only right that sufficient funding is made available to hospices so that their continued existence is not so reliant on charity.

To find out more about the Hospice movement please visit www.hospiceinformation.info .

What do you think? E.mail your views to Have Your Say .

June Editorial 2005 Comment

THE LOST MILLIONS

Have you ever wondered how much is lying around in forgotten bank accounts, pension funds or insurance policies? …£10 million? £250 million? Think again, the staggering reality is something in the order of £15 billion!

There are numerous reasons why people lose touch with their money, but the most common is perhaps the most avoidable. Simply failing to give a forwarding address when moving! According to National Savings and Investment, one in 16 people who move house forget to inform the finance companies holding their accounts and investments.

Thankfully, there are organisations in existence which will help reunite forgotten funds with their rightful owners.

The British Bankers’ Association offer a free tracing service which can be accessed by visiting www.bba.org.uk or by telephone 020 7216 8909. Also the Building Societies Association offer a similar service and an on-line tracing form can be completed by visiting www.bsa.org.uk or you can call 020 7437 0655.

People trying to track down a pension can contact the Pensions Scheme Registry for a free tracing service on 0845 600 2537.

In addition the Unclaimed Assets Register can undertake a full and comprehensive search for a modest fee. They can be contacted on 0870 241 1713 or by visiting www.uar.co.uk.

A GOOD CAUSE

Despite these schemes, what happens to the cash that is eventually left unclaimed? An excellent initiative in putting those missing millions (or billions!) to a good cause, has been the formation of the splendidly named Balance Charitable Foundation (BCF) which was established in December 2003.

Its objective is to release unclaimed assets held in UK’s financial institutions and use them to make grants to the charitable sector. It is a private initiative, independent of government.

In April 2005 the BCF announced that its first grant making programme will fund work focused on the needs of older people across the UK, particularly those over 75 at risk of social exclusion.

Applications are eligible from charitable or voluntary organisations and grants will normally be from £50,000 to £100,000, phased over up to five years. To find out more visit www.balancefoundation.org.uk or telephone 020 7936 4333.

HELPING GORDON BROWN!

However, I cannot leave the subject of putting money to a good cause without telling you about the Commission for the Reduction of the National Debt (yes, seriously!). For anyone who is struck by a pressing urge to give their money to the government, then this is the place for you!

The commission was set with the admirable purpose of accepting voluntary donations in order to reduce the national debt. The usual source of such generosity comes in the form of bequests, but receipts are dropping off! The commission received £881,000 in 2002/03, but this crashed to £207,000 in 2003/04.

Clearly, Gordon Brown must be losing sleep over this and if there is anyone out there who wants to give their money to the Exchequer (no questions asked!), do let me know!!

1.6.05

May 2005 Editorial Comment

SCANDAL OF LONG TERM HEALTH CARE

One of the greatest scandals in modern day Britain is the degrading and shameful situation that sees many of our older citizens forced into selling their homes to pay for long-term healthcare.

In 1999, a Royal Commission, set up by this government, recommended that all nursing and personal care for elderly people should be provided free of charge.

The Sutherland report, named after its chairman, stated that such care should be paid for out of general taxation and is free at the point of delivery, at a cost of some £1 billion to the Exchequer. While these measures have been adopted in Scotland, our own government eventually chose only to fund nursing care. Thereby forcing thousands of elderly people to pay the costs of personal care, such as washing, feeding and help using the lavatory.

People with capital in excess of £18,500 will get no state help with care costs. It is quite wrong that those who pay National Insurance contributions all their lives save hard and have bought their own homes run the risk of having it all taken away should they be in need of long-term health care. How can this compare with those who own nothing, have saved nothing and have paid little taxes who will receive a comprehensive care service free of charge.

The means testing employed is degrading and impoverishes older people. For many, who are by no means wealthy, but have a modest amount of saving and own their home are compelled to deplete those savings and even sell their house to pay for their care. It is estimated that around 70,000 people had to sell their homes last year to fund this service.

Claire Rayner, a member of the Royal Commission on Long term Care, illustrated the point well in a recent letter to The Times: ‘If you suffer from Alzheimer’s disease or any form of dementia the chances are that the Government will not pay your care costs; if you suffer from brain cancer, it will. There can be no conceivable justice in this’.

In addition to the suffering endured by those affected, the added indignity of being stripped of assets to pay for what should be an entitlement only serves to heighten the suffering. The provision of healthcare from the cradle
to the grave should be subject to need, not how much your house is worth.

It would appear that the Liberal Democrats are the only party who have set out a policy to eradicate this iniquity - let us hope that some of that sense of justice and common sense rubs off on the incoming government.

What do you think? E.mail your views to Have Your Say

April 2005 Editorial Comment

MAKE WAY FOR ANOTHER BANK HOLIDAY?

With St Georges Day falling on a Saturday this year, it is possible that celebrations may be a little more animated than in previous years. More likely is the annual debate regarding the merits of an additional Bank Holiday.

The call to make St Georges Day a Bank Holiday was recently proposed by MP for Romford, Andrew Rosindell, but the motion failed to win overall support in Parliament as it contained a condition that the May Day Bank Holiday should be scrapped to make way for it.

Last month, Watford MP, Claire Ward, proposed that an additional Bank Holiday is introduced on third Monday of October. This would be called 'Public Service Day' in recognition of all those engaged in public duty and its connected purposes.
While the name of an additional Bank Holiday may attract some debate, the argument for an additional Bank Holiday carries some considerable weight.

Compared to our European counterparts we lag far behind. France has 11 days, Northern Ireland and Belgium 10, Germany and Greece up to 12, while Portugal and Spain enjoy 14. Since European enlargement, the average has increased to 11.35 days, boosted by Cyprus with 16 and Hungary with 13 days. Britain currently languishes at the bottom of the table with eight days.

However, it should be borne in mind that when a Bank Holiday falls on a weekend our European neighbours do not have a day off in lieu.

We work the longest hours in Europe and, according to the TUC, undertake unpaid overtime to the tune of £23 billion per year. In addition, the long gap between the public holiday in August and Christmas would benefit from a break mid stream.

But why call it 'Public Service Day'? What about the many who work in shops, factories or hotels? I'm not convinced that awarding the Public Sector with such an accolade is in the best interests of everyone. The Private Sector plays an equally important role in the well-being and prosperity of our country.

Critics of this proposal would point out that an additional Bank Holiday would cost around £2 billion and a loss in productivity. With markets in Asia and China becoming stronger and stronger, which enjoy significantly fewer holidays, can we afford the luxury of another day off?

On balance, I believe the weight of argument would justify another Bank Holiday. While St Georges Day is a serious contender, my own preference would be for Armistice Day to be made a Public Holiday. After all, what greater public duty can there be than to lay down your life so that we can live in freedom today? It would present an opportunity for generations young and old alike to remember those lost in all wars across the globe - past, present and future.

On the Home Page we are running a mini-poll which invites you to vote for a favourite. The short list is down to St Georges Day, Public Service Day or Armistice Day. At the end of the month the result will be published on this website.

What do you think? Please post your comments to 'Have Your Say'.

March 2005 Editorial Comment

WHAT A LOTTERY!

Not only is it of some concern that Havering continue to lose out to neighbouring boroughs when it comes to Lottery grants, but the whole rationale of unaccountable quango’s determining where the good causes money is spent is questionable.

It beggars belief that voluntary groups such as First Step (a Havering based voluntary group helping pre-school children with special needs) have their £250,000 bid to improve their premises turned down while some highly dubious projects have cash thrown at them. Just consider the following list of not so good causes –

£625m Millennium Dome (enough said!)
£78.5m To subsidise the Royal Opera House
£11.5m For the National Gallery to buy a painting by Raphael
£1.6m ‘It was an Accident’ – A film flop starring Max Beesley
£220,000 Whirlow Farm Trust to install Luxury Pig Sties
£30,000 A composer to go to California to work on paranormal music

………and so the list goes on.

Since 1996 Havering has been awarded £3.5 million in grants, compare this with Redbridge (£6.5m), Barking & Dagenham (£8.4m), Hackney (£21.1m) and Tower Hamlets (£22.6m).

For the reasons we get a poor settlement from the government in terms of local authority funding, I suspect the same logic extends to our lack of success in attracting Lottery funding.

Grant application criteria must take into account levels of deprivation, social need, density and many other factors. It seems that Havering is perceived as a more affluent borough than most and therefore not quite so needy!

The National Lottery generate around £90 million of sales a week of which £25 million (28%) is set aside for good causes.

If we convert that to our own area, the figures are quite astonishing. Say, on average, each household in the borough bought £2 worth of tickets a week, that would generate around £9.5 million a year, of which £2.7 million
(28%) is set aside for good causes. However, we have no influence as to where that money goes.

In order to give people more of a say in allocating grants, I would suggest the Government and Camelot consider the creation of a ‘Local Fund’. If a proportion of the total good causes sum, say 30% (£800,000), could be diverted solely to a ‘Local Good Causes’ fund this would provide improved opportunity for local applicants and promote greater partnership links between voluntary groups and the community.

The fund could be managed by a citizens panel, made up of residents, councillors and other associated representatives and bids considered via a public forum, perhaps even through the existing area committees.

The local fund would not preclude organisations applying for main lottery funding, but at least it would give them another option.

Local voluntary groups, such as First Step and St Francis Hospice provide an immensely valuable service to the community. The creation of a local fund would provide a greatly improved, and deserved, source of revenue for these organisations.

What do you think? E.mail your views to ‘Have Your Say’

February 2005 Editorial Comment

TACKLING THE FLY TIPPERS

The scourge of fly-tipping is sadly evident across the borough, whether it is Pike Lane in Upminster, Fir Tree Close in Romford or Gooshays Drive in Harold Hill, there are those in the community who confuse our streets, parks and open spaces with the local amenity site.

The dumping of rubbish is a serious offence (Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 33) and offenders can face a fine up to £20,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. Indeed, a case heard before Bridgend magistrates in 2001 resulted in a two-month prison sentence for a serial fly-tipper.

Havering Council deal with approximately 2,200 incidents of fly-tipping a year at a cost of around £120,000. Domestic fly-tipping makes up most of the cases but commercial fly-tipping can result in large deposits of building material in lanes and secluded spots.

The council can only clean up the mess as quickly as they can and cannot be held to blame. The fault belongs solely to the people who dump the rubbish in the first place!

Catching the culprits is notoriously difficult as it is such an easy offence to commit. Any clampdowns or installation of CCTV will just move the problem elsewhere.

Much domestic fly-tipping is made up of fridges, TVs, furniture and computers. New technology and aggressive competition in the market have driven down the price of electrical appliances. The days of putting a tumble dryer in for repair are numbered, with the option of simply purchasing a replacement the preferred, and more economical, alternative.

This gives rise to huge amounts of unwanted items. The council will collect and dispose of bulky household items for £15, but even this modest sum could be viewed as an obstacle to responsible disposal.

If you see someone fly-tipping, the following steps are recommended:

* Never approach the person as they may become violent
* Never touch any of the waste or open containers as they may contain hazardous material
* Get a description of any vehicles involved along the registration numbers, location and time
* Report the incident to the council on 01708 433175

As well as examining practical measures to tackle this type of anti-social behaviour it is important to raise the issue through schools, public meetings and newsletters. As well as relying on the council to clear up the mess, the community need to develop a robust and effective response to this undesirable practice.

In terms of practical measures, I recall many years ago the ‘rag & bone’ man (or Mr Steptoe) who would roam the streets clanging his bell to the cry of ‘any old iron’. He would provide a useful service to the community by taking away bulky unwanted items and turning a coin for his troubles.

Perhaps this service could be formally reintroduced in the 21st Century. If a dedicated service were to follow the street refuse collection route on a set day, say every other month, it would provide the opportunity for householders to dispose of bulky household items in a legitimate and convenient way simply by leaving the items on the border of their properties.

Clearly there is a funding issue as charging for the service would be self defeating. However, if there were less incidents of fly tipping across the borough as a result it would be a worthwhile investment.

In addition, perhaps we could encourage positive community participation by promoting a Community Reward Scheme for reports that lead to the successful prosecution of culprits.

What do you think? Please e.mail your views to Have Your Say!

Clarence Barrett
Editor

January 2005 Editorial Comment

OLYMPIC SIZED BILL FOR HAVERING!

Extended version of letter published in The Times (24.11.04) on Debate Page

The prospect of the 2012 Olympic games coming to London is undoubtedly exciting. However, it appears that the Mayor of London and the Government can agree, without a hint of consultation, that London council taxpayers must contribute £625 million towards the cost of staging the Games.

The official bid was recently submitted to the International Olympic Committee and I read with interest of the proposed venues and facilities but could find nothing that will leave a legacy of improvement in Havering.

It appears that the total cost of hosting the games is estimated at £2.4 billion. This would be funded from the Lottery (£1.5 billion), the London Development Agency (£250 million) and the remaining £625 million falls upon the council taxpayers of London.

If the bid is successful, then from 2006/07 all London council taxpayers will be charged an additional £20 a year for 12 years.

For the council taxpayers of Havering this will mean generating £1.7million per year for 12 years, that's a handsome £20.4 million in total!

Venues outside London

While many of the venues are located in London, several are not. Residents of Bisley, Surrey, will not be asked to pay more for the shooting event and people living in Southampton will not be charged to host the sailing events. Why should a pensioner in Havering or Hillingdon be expected to pay for an Olympics that is concentrated in the East of London?

The nearest event to Havering is likely to be the mountain biking competition, which is due to take place at Weald Country Park in Brentwood.

When Manchester held the 2002 Commenwealth Games, they did so without imposing an additional levy on their residents.

Perhaps most galling, why is it that residents have to pay the additional levy, but businesses across the capital, many of which stand to hit the jackpot if the Games come to town, are not expected to make an additional contribution through business rates?

Our council tax has increased by 50% over the last three years and we pay the third highest charge in London. Is it really fair to charge us even more?

Lottery Tax

We are constantly reminded how the Games would benefit the country as a whole.

In which case the £625 million should be raised through a more universal method of taxation that spreads the burden. For example, the Government imposes a 12 per cent tax on lottery sales, raising around £500 million per year.

If half of this were given over to the Games for a period of three years, it would release around £750 million, more than enough to meet the levy being demanded of Londoners.

Even if the £625 million were raised through general taxation it would have a negligible impact on individual taxpayers when spread across the country.

In terms of the impact on Havering, I look forward to seeing someone from the 2012 Olympic Bid team popping over to explain to us the benefits we can expect to see?

Is the London Olympic council tax levy fair? What do you think?

E.mail your views to 'Have Your Say'

December 2004 Editorial Comment 

COUNCIL TAX – THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED! - December 2004

After rises of 12%, 8%, 17% and 6% in the last four years respectively, the limit has been reached, and many would say exceeded, in terms of excessive increases.

As we all know, the increase in council tax has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the quality of service, in fact the opposite is true.

The Audit Commission grade all local authorities according to their overall quality of service. The official classification for Havering is ‘weak’. Not very encouraging for a council which charges the third highest rate in London.

The average council tax bill has increased from £853 in 2000/01 to £1,284 in 2004/05. That’s an increase of over 50% in four years. Out of the whole country, Havering has imposed the 5th highest cumulative increase (£2,285) since 1997.

If any other service provider were to hike up charges at the same rate as the council tax they would be shunned by customers and be out of business in a flash. Even though the council insist on calling us customers, we are not. We are legally forced to pay our council tax bill regardless of the standard of service received. As our salaries, pensions and other benefits rise with the rate of inflation, so should the council tax. This is surely a minimum requirement.

The tired old excuses are trotted out where the council blame the government and the government blame the council - but it is the residents who are left to pick up the bill.

£12.1 million increase

As the calculations for the 2005/06 council tax are being considered, an integral part of the process is to form a package of savings to counteract budget increases in order to balance the books.

For example, the current budget includes a saving of £1 million in anticipation of reducing levels of sick leave. The budget also includes an increase of £1.5 million to top up the pension fund.

The whole budget was increased by £12.1 million from 2003/04. This includes budget increases of £6 million, inflation and levies at £4.3 million, school funding at £5.8 million and budget reductions of £4 million.

The alternative budget consultation

Although we can do little about the charge imposed by the Mayor of London, are we in a position to influence the council tax rate set by the current administration?

The budget consultation run by the council last year attracted a whopping 900 returns (0.4% of the population). The usual bland generalisations were set out, e.g. ‘If spending were to rise, how would you prefer to pay for it?’, the answers were equally meaningless as there is little authority in such a tepid question and a pitiful response.

The survey asked how the Council can save money. The most popular response (22%) was to address the issue of councillors’ remuneration. However, this was ignored in the initial Cabinet budget proposals and it took an amendment from Residents’ Association Councillors recommending a reduction to achieve a decrease in council tax.

But what can we do as residents? As we are the ones who receive the service, we are best placed to point out its strengths and weaknesses.

Through this website we can engage in an ‘alternative budget consultation’. This would embrace residents cost cutting ideas and seek to highlight examples of waste, duplication and inefficiency. This information can then be presented to the council to support a fair council tax for residents.

E-mail your views to Have your Say and we will post as many as possible on the website before presenting to the council.

Clarence Barrett
Editor

POLICE STRENGTH IN HAVERING- November 2004

As the party conference season once again draws to a close, it is always interesting to reflect on what topics were covered and what promises will be delivered if elected.

Law and Order is always a favourite and the three main parties have promised a variety of measures which include a more collaborative role for victims in the sentencing process, more accountability at a local level and, of course, putting more police on the streets

E-mail your views to 'Have your Say'

Website Designed and built by Avalon Web Designs © 2004
Updated by Bernard Boakes