New Bus Station in Ashton Hit By Structural Faults.

Tameside Interchange Ashton-under-Lyne

Four years ago, it was announced that the bus station in Ashton-under-Lyne, was to be demolished and replaced by a new Tameside Interchange bus station costing £33m. The new bus station was all part of the 'Vision Tameside' project dreamt up by the Labour controlled Tameside Council.

The new bus station was scheduled to open next month (August), but Northern Voices has been told that there are already serious problems with the building. Seemingly, the roof on the new building is leaking and the wrong floor has been laid within the building. Sources have also told  Northern Voices that the bus station is not big enough, being eight bays too short and that there are problems with reversing. 

Just over two years ago, Tameside Council's 'Vision Tameside' project was seriously imperilled following the collapse of the construction giant, Carillion. Despite warnings that Carillion was a serious risk, and that speculators were shorting Carillion shares, the Labour council under its leader Kieran Quinn, continued to award more contracts and work to the failing construction company. Critics accused the council of putting too many eggs in one basket which could potentially bring the council down along with Carillion and of deals done behind closed doors. 

Ombudsman slams Tameside Council's 'top-up'!

 Criticism of council for ‘forcing’ resident to pay unlawful care home top-up

By Rachel Carter on October 3, 2014 in Adults, Residential care

A care home resident was forced to pay an unlawful top-up fee after Tameside Council made changes to the fees it paid her home, a Local Government Ombudsman investigation has found.

THE investigation, whose findings have been strongly disputed by the council, was launched after a man complained that his mother had had to pay additional costs for her care after the authority cut the fee it paid her home.
The woman, Mrs Y, who had dementia, moved into the care home in October 2010, in a placement arranged by the council. Under the contract, the authority was responsible for meeting the weekly fees of £470.70 a week, incorporating a £381.70 basic fee, £30 for an en-suite bathroom, £9 for a larger room and a £50 quality premium for the home. Mrs Y made an assessed contribution of £113.20.
In 2012, Tameside reviewed the rates it paid for residential and nursing care placements and decided to introduce a new quality framework for homes to address an oversupply of beds in the borough. Under the framework, care homes providing a high quality of care received an enhanced payment from the council.
Mrs Y’s care home was not admitted onto the quality framework, meaning it could charge council-funded residents what it chose. However, the council also reduced the fees it paid for her care to £382, from March 2013. The council told Mrs Y’s son, Mr X, that, as the home had maintained the same fee of £470.70 he would have to make up the £88.70 shortfall as a top-up payment – but as he did not have these funds he began paying the top-up from his mother’s savings from March 2013 and informed the council of this fact.
Though Mr X believed it was not in his mother’s best interests to move from the home, he asked the council to assess the risk of moving her to another home. However, the council said it would only reassess her needs if it had been decided that she should move, and Mr X appeared unwilling to consider this.
Failure to follow law
The ombudsman, Jane Martin, found that the council had failed to act in accordance with the law and government guidance on choice of residential accommodation arranged under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
The guidance states that a resident may only top-up their council’s fee if they have a deferred payments agreement or are subject to the 12-week property disregard, otherwise any top-up must be made by a third party. Neither condition applied to Mrs Y, but the top-up came out of her resources.
Also, Martin pointed to the fact that a top-up requires the agreement of all parties, but said it had been “effectively forced” on the family, as Mr X felt there was no option but to make the top-up because of the risks of moving his mother to another home.
The ombudsman also said the council was at fault for not reassessing Mrs Y’s finances after changing her care fees, to check willingness and ability to meet the new costs.
The report also said the council failed to adhere to the terms of the contract governing Mrs Y’s care, which contained a “legitimate and reasonable expectation” that the council would meet the contractual fees agreed on admission unless there was a change in her needs.
Mrs Y died in March of this year.
‘Significant injustice’
The ombudsman said that Mrs Y and Mr X had suffered a “significant injustice” because of the council’s actions, and recommended that it:

• reimburse Mrs Y’s estate for the full amount of the third-party top-ups that have been made;
• provide Mr X with a full written apology;
• pay Mr X £250 to recognise his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  

The ombudsman’s report also suggested that a further 160 residents may have been affected by the council’s changes to care commissioning, as they were resident in homes that were not admitted on to the council’s quality framework.
But Tameside council strongly disputed the findings and “categorically denied” that it failed to act in accordance with the law. A spokesperson for the council said that the report was fundamentally flawed and raised questions about whether the ombudsman herself had “unlawfully exceeded” her powers.
The spokesperson said: “The council reviewed its commissioning arrangements to ensure that only those homes that offered the highest standard of care get paid a quality premium rate. This was not about cost cutting.
“Tameside council continues to pay one of the highest care and nursing fees across the North West of England to support the most vulnerable in our community.  The purpose of this change, made in 2012, was to raise and maintain the quality of care in Tameside care homes whilst ensuring they remained financially sustainable.”

Claims rejected by council

The council also rejected the ombudsman’s claim that 160 other residents may have been affected. “This is inaccurate as the information provided by the council makes clear that the number at its highest is no more than 10, who we are in the process of writing to directly,” said the spokesperson.
“As the majority are in the same home, it is important this is kept in proportion, and that the poorer quality homes do not, as a result of this finding, believe they have been given the green light to charge what they like.”
Speaking in response to the case, Janet Morrison, chief executive of charity Independent Age, which campaigns strongly against the wrongful use of top-ups, said: “Too many families now find themselves paying top-up payments, sometimes amounting to be hundreds of pounds a week, for essential care. The root cause of this problem is a residential care system that is chronically under-funded.
“Families are increasingly having to subsidise local councils to meet the costs of care it is really the responsibility of councils to meet, so we need the government to protect people from paying unfair ‘top-ups’ as part of the shake-up of the rules from April 2015.”

********************************

Guardsman Tony Downes House letter

Greater Manchester Pension Fund under attack

Editorial note:  The letter below was sent on

the 18th, July 1919 by a group of people 

concerned about the investments of the Greater

Manchester Fund which they consider are heavily

held in dirty fossil fuel companies.  Since the group

 took part in a joint meeting with the fund there has 

been a protest demonstration in Droyslden on Friday, 

July 19th.  Since then Cllr. Brenda Warrington and other Labour

councillors on Tameside Council, Greater Manchester have tried

to use the family of Tony Downes to distract attention from 
the claim of the protesters that the pension fund's 
investments are the 'dirtiest in in the country'.

********************

18 July 2019

Councillor Brenda Warrington

Chair: Greater Manchester Pension Fund

Guardsman Tony Downes House,

5 Manchester Road

Droylsden,

M43 6SF

Dear Councillor Warrington,

Meeting between GMPF and Fossil Free Greater Manchester

Thank you for arranging the meeting with us on 10 July. We are writing to summarise the key points of the discussion from our perspective and to clarify our understanding of the issues and our ongoing position.

Although the meeting had been mooted for over a year, we received short notice about the meeting. We note that a briefing note was produced and this has since been shared with one of our members, but this was not tabled either before or during the meeting. We appreciated the presence of your senior managers, your deputy chair and your advisors from PIRC at the meeting.

1. Decarbonisation plans and time line

The Fund confirmed that it plans to become carbon neutral by 2050. No rationale was given for selecting a date 31 years from now. We note that Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the City of Manchester have set science-based, Paris compliant carbon budgets with projected net zero date of 2038 and both have said they will review the possibility of bringing that target date forward. The IPCC has noted that the world has no more than 11 years to make radical reductions to greenhouse gas emissions, the majority of which come from burning fossil fuels. The Fund did say that they anticipated decarbonising their investments before 2050 but claimed that the strategy needs time. The Fund also put emphasis on becoming carbon neutral rather than carbon free which could mean you would still be investing in fossil fuels if the emisisons could in some way be neutralized. However there is no technology available for doing this at the requred scale.

The Fund is using Investing in the Just Transition Initiative and Truecost in an advisory capacity to make changes. We pointed out that Truecost is not Paris compliant.

The Fund confirmed that it is moving £2.3Bn from passive tracker funds to a low carbon actively managed fund. This coincides with a change in Fund manager. While you emphasised that this has taken a lot of work to achieve given the need for robust risk assessment, no detail was given as to what that risk assessment entials, nor what its results have been.

It was pointed out that the policy environment set by central government makes it very difficult to plan for decarbonisation. We acknowledge the unhelpful policy context (discouragement of renewable energy, continuing subsidies for fossil fuels, promotion of unconventional hydrocarbons in the face of scientific evidence). However, we do not believe that this significantly impedes the switching of investments out of the fossil fuel industry. After all, other investors are doing just that.

2. Rationale for continued investment in Fossil Fuels and perceived risk of divestment.

It was pointed out to us that financial performance is paramount since this enables pensions to be paid without a cost to the employers. We do not disagree with this reality.

We argued that the evidence was that fossil stocks did no better over time than other stocks, citing the Grantham, Trinks et al studies¹ and the two major Ex-Fossil Fuel indexes¹. The Fund countered that they had calculated that the funds in fossil fuel gained them an additional £400 thousand (we don't recall a time period being identified), which they would not have achieved had they divested. We note that this differential does not represent a large difference in dividend returns, given the huge value of your fossil fuel holdings. You argued that this was based on real data rather than modelling. However, we said that a) this likely reflected the higher volatility of fossil fuel stocks (so it could easily go the other way and b) these stocks are vulnerable to passing the peak in demand leading to stranding and a sudden drop in values and returns. This point was acknowledged by Sandra Stewart. GMPF seem to believe that active fund management will allow you to assess when fossil fuels have peaked. Yet we know that these peaks can cause sudden and precipitous declines in stock values and returns, so in our view that confidence seems misplaced. We would add that there are other investments that yield comparably higher returns and a balanced portfolio would inevitably have higher and lower performing holdings with corresponding spreads of risk. On reflection we conclude that the £400k argument is no more than a post-hoc rationalisation for an unethical investment portfolio.

3. Impact of divestment

GMPF challenged the idea that divestment would lead to good outcomes do since other, less ethical investors (e.g. Blackrock) would buy your shares and it would be business as usual and maybe those companies would not be challenging the boards of oil and gas companies. We pointed out that divestment is meant to a) remove the social license for continued fossil fuel extraction, b) it will eventually harm stock valuation and profits which in turn makes capital investment in exploration and new extraction harder for the fossil majors. As we noted, this seems to be the view of Shell's CEO and also the Head of OPEC, both of whom have recently cited the divestment movement as a major threat¹. There is also evidence that divestment decisions are harming stock values. While this has been largely a transient effect, it now seems likely that the impacts are becoming more sustained as the divestment movement builds up².

It was argued that tobacco divestment had been shown to be ineffective since tobacco firms simply switched markets to the global South. However the two cases are not comparable. Fossil fuel majors do not have significant new markets to exploit in the same way that tobacco firms could. A better comparison is that of apartheid South Africa, where sanctions and divestment meant firms there being starved of funds that went to other economies: that is what we are already beginning to see with fossil fuels.

It was claimed that many supposed divestment commitments were unreal – divestment has not followed. This is true in some cases but it does not alter the picture: a growing movement is taking money out of the fossil fuel industry and, together with other trends and pressures, beginning to harm that industry, reducing its capacity for the capital expenditure that directly causes ecosystem destruction.

4. Engagement

We pointed out that engagement, while relevant in many sectors has demonstrably not impacted on the carbon emissions from fossil fuel companies, only impacting on non-core areas suchas disclosure and R and D, and that unevenly. Against all the evidence, your advisors still feel that it is relevant, inexplicably citing resolutions made at Exxon and Chevron, both along with your biggest holdings, Shell and BP, still spending tens of millions each year lobbying against climate action², as examples of successful engagement. We pointed to the National Trust as a body that has chosen to divest because engagement has not worked.

PIRC did take on board the need for objective setting, timelines and sanctions, so there can be transparency about engagement with companies. They said they were working on a framework for this. This is long overdue and would provide objective criteria to assess the effectiveness of engagement and help make the decision to exit from a company when it failed to respond. But we reiterate, engagement will not change a company whose core business is fossil fuel extraction and marketing into something entirely different. It's a bit like talking to a leopard in the hoe that it will change its spots.

5. Alternative Investments

It was stated that the Fund is constantly looking to source other investments but that it is difficult to find enough with decent yields and there is also strong and increasing competition (including Chinese investment that is “willing to pay anything”) so that your investment managers get outbid. You cited Clyde Wind Farm and Albion Community Renewables as successful investments in renewables. When we argued that the alternatives to fossil fuels do not have to be renewables you again cited the £400K gain made in oil/gas over the rest of the portfolio (but see our critique, above)

You stated that you are actively developing the renewables market / industry through their partnership with other Pension Funds in GLIL Infrastructure LLP: however, this is not exclusively investing in renewables².

6. Comparison with other funds and transparency

It was claimed that other pension funds are not doing as much to divest as is suggested in their publicity and communication³. GMPF was said to be actually taking a lead in ‘doing something‘ but it was claimed that you do not have the time to relay this information to interested parties. We pointed out that despite being a leader among LGPF's, you are seen as being on the back foot on the climate issue and it would help to provide more information, especially to members and beneficiaries. In this light we are concerned to find that members are now to be excluded from the Fund's AGM (now retitled the employer update meeting) which we see as a rather clumsy and counterproductive attempt to avoid public scrutiny.

We requested more frequent updates on their holdings. This was refused this on the basis of commercial sensitivity. The claim is that because GMPF is so successful as a pension fund (though benchmark comparisons seem to suggest poorer recent comparative performance) you cannot divulge their strategy and companies regularly as other funds and private investors would copy them. This frankly seems implausible. Being tracked is hardly likely to impair the yield from your investments: we will seek a second opinion on the validity of this argument.

7. Comments about the fossil free campaign

PIRC took isue with our leaflet and website claims about your profile as the “largest and dirtiest in the country”.  Unfortunately the claim is accurate. We explained that this was on the basis of the study by a group of NGOS coordinated by Platform London in 2017⁴. Interestingly PIRC seemed unaware of this work, though Tom Harrington was aware of it.

PIRC's Alan MacDougall also queried what our priorities for GMPF would be: we reiterated that it is the reduction of complicity with continued exploration and extraction of “unburnable” carbon.

8. Further contact

We thanked you for your time (over an hour) and a constructive discussion, although we will continue to differ on a number of issues as outlined above. We do appreciate the compexities of decarbonising your investment portfoolio and moving to a position where pensions are not dependent on an industry that has taken humanity to the edge of a precipice. We accept that you are moving in the right direction but we continue to assert, with evidence, that the speed of your decarbonisation is inadequate to the scale and urgency of the climate crisis, which as you all know is very much here and getting worse by the month.

You suggested inviting us to your next meeting for stakeholders with (we think) the Investing in a Just Transition Initiative. We confirm that we would like to receive an invitation, although we would appreciate more room for discussion and the presentation of critically constructive perspectives.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Mark Burton

for the Fossil Free Greater Manchester organising group

**************************

Councillor Cooney cops-out of climate change

by changing the subject!

Councillor Ged Cooney

IN a sickly outburst at a Council meeting last Tuesday, Tameside Cllr. Ged Cooney, who represents Droylsden West and is vice-chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, chose to use the fact that an ugly building on Manchester Road, Droylsden, that is being now used as a venue for the Pension Fund, had been dedicated in 2015 to a guardsman who died in a landmine blast in Afghanistan in 2007, to dodge his own responsibility for the fund's long-term investments in dirty carbon fuels.

When the new headquarters in Droyslden of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund was dedicated in 2015, Councillor Kieran Quinn said:  'By honouring Tony in this way as a member of our armed forces I believe we are honouring all our fallen heroes.'

What is disgusting is why the bosses of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund should now be using a fallen hero to excuse their own climate abuse and to distract attention from their unsavoury dirty investments.  At the same Council meeting Cllr. Cooney, Cabinet member for housing, planning and employment, had to defend Tameside Council's outsourcing partnership with the now disgraced outfit Carillion PLC.    

At last week's meeting, Tory Cllr. Liam Billington put an awkward question of Cllr. Cooney about Tameside Labour Council's historic partnership with Carillion with the previous council leader, Cllr. Quinn bragging about his close relationship with the dedicated blacklister almost to the point of the company's final collapse.  

In reply Cllr. Cooney blustered-on about it being difficult of finding an outsourcing company which hadn't been implicated in blacklisting, and he mentioned Laing O'Rourke, which in May 2016, together with Carillion were among eight companies that apologised for blacklisting building workers.  Labour Cllr. Quinn knew about this at the time, because I as Secretary of Tameside TUC wrote to him about it in August 2011.   Of course I didn't get a reply then or later, because Quinn and the then Labour council were happy to continue doing business despite the squalid existence of the unsavoury blacklist.

The real issue now is will Cllr. Cooney, his councillor leader Brenda Warrington, and his other Labour colleagues now turnover a new leaf?

****************

Tameside MBC Dirty Dancing with Fossil Fuels

Four Arrested At Anti-Fracking Demo in Droyslden!
by Brian Bamford (Sec. Tameside TUC)

TODAY four objectors to Tameside Council's dirty dance promotion of fossil fuel investments through the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) were detained in a protest of about 100 activists from FOSSIL FREE GM protesting outside Guardsman Tony Downes House in Droyslden, in Tameside and were taken away to police stations in Ashton-under-Lyne and elsewhere in Greater Manchester.   The three men and a young lass were arrested after they had super-glued and locked themselves to the railings.  

Environmental activists, Green Party members including Tameside Cllr. Lee Huntbach, and trade unionists were present at the event.

 Exclusive Bosses Secret Concordat as Pensioners Banned

The occasion today was what should have been the AGM of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, but in a remarkable piece of Orwellian linguistics has now been re-christened the 'Annual Employers yearly update'!  The protesters were supporters of 'FOSSIL FREE GM'.

This cunning change of title was created so as to justify excluding the pensioners who are members of the Pension Fund, and public from meeting. Consequently, the event today chaired by Tameside Council boss, Brenda Warrington, became a glorified Councillor's Concordat from which the membership, the pensioners and the public were locked-out.   

 As the FOSSIL FREE GM campaigners super-glued their limbs to the railings of the Pension Fund's building and set about their business-like endeavours of spray painting the windows of the Manchester Road building urging the council bosses of Greater Manchester to quit their dirty investments in oil companies like Shell and Fossil Fuels generally, nervous councillors furtively fled round to the rear entrance to gain access to their 'BOSSES ONLY' secretive Concordat.  

In the past these Greater Manchester council bosses have tried to assure the public that they are clean and responsible in their investment decisions.  Last year in their Annual Statement these Pension Fund bigwigs declared:


'Although we will listen to special interest groups that oppose some of GMPF’s investments, for example in alcohol, gambling or pharmaceuticals, we cannot let this detract from our duty.  Considerations such as these have led us to decide not to have or develop a detailed generalised ethical investment policy.  We prefer to concentrate on developing a policy that involves using voting and other contacts to positively influence company behaviour.  In our view, simply disinvesting from particular companies is a denial of responsibility.'

Perhaps the Manchester supporters of 'FOSSIL FREE GM' can be excused for seeing this as yet more hypocrisy from their local councillors.

*******************

More brouhaha about Flag Flying in Tameside!

Stalybridge Labour Club

A KEEN eyed vexillogist and Northern Voices reader, recently sent us this picture of the rainbow (gay) flag blowing proudly in the wind atop the flag pole of Stalybridge Labour Club. 

The art historian and journalist, Brian Sewell, expressed the view in July 2011 that the lives of many Mancunians were haplessly intertwined with transvestites, transsexuals, teenage lesbians and a horde of homosexuals across the range, because Manchester is known for being one of the most LGBT friendly cities in the UK. The gay art critic, asked:   'Is Manchester now the Sodom of the North?  Where once we had no gaiety at all, we now perhaps, have rather too much.'

In May this year, Cllr Leigh Drennan became the first openly gay Mayor of Tameside.   Two other boroughs in the region, have had an openly gay Mayor - Bury and Manchester.  Among the Mayor's charities this year, will be the 'LGBT Foundation'.   In his year as Mayor, Drennan has said that he hopes he can help to raise awareness of the issues LGBT people face and help people overcome prejudice.

In recent years, the subject of flags and their symbolism, is something that has given rise to much brouhaha and consternation in Tameside.  In March 2018, two Tameside Conservatives, Cllr Doreen Dickenson and Liam Billington, saw red when an hammer and Sickle flag was run up the same Labour club flagpole. The Communist Party flag had been put there, by friends and family,  following the funeral of Rodney (Rod) McCord, a communist and local health campaigner who had died in March 2018.

Their complaint went viral and caused a furore on social media.  The two low-life Tories, shamelessly tried to make political capital out of Mr McCord's death and the flag incident, by linking it to the poisonings of Yulia and Sergei Skripal, allegedly by the Russian state.  It was also alleged that the manager of Stalybridge Labour Club had received death threats and that one of Mr McCord's sons Danny, had been contacted by someone working in the office of Jeremy Corbyn, demanding that the flag be taken down immediately.

In January 2019, a row erupted when the landlord of the Sportsman pub in Hyde, was told by a Greater Manchester Licensing Officer working for Tameside Council, to take down a flag with an iconic image of the famous revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.  The landlord, Geoff Oliver, and his Cuban-born wife Maria, had run the pub and restaurant El Cuba Libre for the last five years.  The flag had been on display on-and-off at the pub for the past five years and wasn't removed from public view.  It has been rumoured that a certain Tameside Tory may have been behind this complaint involving the landlord of the Sportsman pub.

We are not aware that there has been any objections to the rainbow flag. Nowadays, LGBT issues and identity politics have supplanted class politics and have become something required by etiquette and current fashion. There is an obvious and inherent danger with all of this.  The massive attention paid to issues such as Brexit and identity politics, has utterly distracted attention away from the real issues and problems of the world such as, economic inequality, social class, poverty, injustice, capitalist greed and wars, and has divided much of the British left. It has also alienated many people from becoming involved with left-wing politics because of its now farcical nature.

Curiously, the landlord of the Sportsman pub who refused to withdraw the Cuban flag from public view, had his license amended by Tameside's licensing panel when it came up for review. From being allowed to keep serving until 2:00 am in the morning, this was restricted to the witching hour of midnight.  However, we understand from sources, that Stalybridge Labour Club - now privately owned - and which suffers from a lack of customers, has had its licensing hours increased and can now serve until 3:00 in the morning. 

*************

Tameside Council security tell Tameside Councillors to move on!

A SMALL group of protesters who meet each week to give out free food parcels and benefit advice to the unemployed and homeless, outside Ashton-under-Lyne Jobcentre, were told to move on yesterday by the local police and Tameside Council security personnel, after they arrived outside the new Tameside One building, in Market Place, Ashton.  The building now accommodates Ashton library, Tameside Council's Customer Services, Citizens Advice, Cash Box Credit Union and Jobcentre Plus.

Among those who were told to move on by burly Tameside security staff, were two Tameside Councillors and Cabinet members - Oliver Ryan, Executive Member (Children Services) and Leanne Feeley, Executive Member (Lifelong Learning).  A former Tameside Mayor, Michael Ballagher, was also among the group as was Nigel Morgan, Chief Executive Officer, Tameside Citizens Advice Bureau.

Charlotte Hughes, a single parent from Ashton-under-Lyne, who leads the group 'Tameside Against The Cuts', later wrote on her blog:

'We arrived as normal at 10am outside the new Jobcentre.  It was pouring down with rain which didn’t help things either.

'The minute that we arrived the police arrived, they must have been waiting for us. At first they were quite happy for us to stand outside the Jobcentre in the plaza area because it had been deemed a public place, however a member of the local authority decided differently.  We were told that we had to stand in the area near the steps downstairs...  Of course that the Jobcentre don’t want us there so they’ve probably had words with someone, you know how these things go.  Despite this’ll we will be back outside the Jobcentre next week.

'We help people, hand food parcels out and support people…  All things that the DWP should do.  Whilst we were there local councillors who were standing with us weren’t impressed with us being moved.  Believe me we will be back.'

Ms Hughes also believes that some disabled people may have difficulty accessing the Jobcentre because of the stairs both in and outside the building and the small lift that some people might be unable to use because of its restricted space.  She was also critical of the lack of signs in the building indicating where to locate services and the lack of privacy in the library.  Apparently, one member of the public complained to her that DWP staff were seen "milling round the library and looking at what people were doing."

Although Labour have been in power in Tameside for the last forty years, the borough has one of the worst records for food poverty in the North West.  It looks like Tameside Council might live to regret having invited Jobcentre Plus into their new administrative centre. 

***************

Library users give big Thumbs Down to OPEN+

Historic Ashton Central Library - Closed February 2019

NORTHERN VOICES has learned that the findings of a survey, 'Open Libraries Plus, Evolution And Review', which  closed on 5th February 2018, was not made public by Tameside Council despite the council having a policy of 'Engagement' - "the continuous conversation with and involvement of stakeholders and residents" and its 'Big Conversation'.

The survey which was undertaken over a four week period from 9 January 2018  to 5 February 2018, by Tameside Libraries into 'Open +' - their unstaffed, do-it-yourself library system - was intended to assess how the system was working and public attitudes towards it. The new library system was rolled out across eight libraries in 2018.  Although Tameside Libraries have stated:

"The purpose of collecting the information was to assist officers in understanding people's views of using Open+, it was not necessary to put this in the public realm", it is clear from reading the survey, and the comments made by those  who participated in it,  that the vast majority of people have expressed dissatisfaction with unstaffed libraries in Tameside, and are highly critical of it.  Despite what the library service say, they seem to have just buried bad news.

Some 145 people responded to the survey, but when asked how many questionnaires had been distributed, Tameside Libraries were unable to answer the question. When asked which library people used most often, Stalybridge was the most used library in Tameside, followed by Hyde, Dukinfield, Droylsden, Denton and central library in Ashton-under-Lyne. 

When asked during which hours do you normally use the library, only 19 people (13.38%), out of 142 responses, said they used the library during Open+ hours.  57 said they used it during staffed hours and 66 during both staffed and Open+ hours. 

Tameside Libraries were keen to stress that the responses to the survey did not represent the total users of Open+ only the ones that completed the survey, adding:  "66 survey responders also indicated that they used the library in both staffed and Open+ mode."

A question about how helpful the induction by library staff to Open+ was, elicited 79 responses with 66 skipping the question. 42 (53.16%) thought it very helpful and 10 (12.66%), unhelpful.  When asked why they found the induction helpful and how it could be made better, only 9 answered and 136 skipped the question.  Some of the comments left by respondents, were as follows:

"As always staff at Stalybridge brilliant."  "I feel that older generation was not informed.  They were told it was 'online and Facebook', but not many people that age access Facebook.  The older people have followed us into the library, they have been very confused.  I have spent more time explaining Open+ than doing my job teaching."  "Don't want unstaffed libraries."  "Libraries without people are merely shells."

When asked which library service people mainly used during Open+ hours, 71 answered and 74 skipped the question. 60 (84.51%), said they borrowed, returned or renewed items, paid charges and used self-service machines during Open + hours. 31 (43.66%), said they picked up or borrowed or reserved items and 14 (19.72%), said they used Open+ hours to use public computers and the scanner. Only 8 (11.27%), said they used Open+ hours to access Wifi. One respondent left the following comment:

"I cannot access Wifi. The computers have gone down on numerous occasions which has had a huge impact on my student who has (SE MS) needs."

The question "How easy have you found it to access the library during Open+ hours?" was answered by 73 and skipped by 72. 33 (45.21%) said very easy and 11 (15.07%) said it was difficult with ten (13.70%), saying very difficult. 29 (40.28%) said they had found the extended Open+ hours very useful and 13 (18.06%), not useful at all. 

When asked to say why they had found using Open+ useful, 47 answered the question and 98 skipped answering it. 21 (44.68%) said the library was quieter in Open+ hours. 34 (72.34%), thought there was more opportunity to use the library due to longer opening hours, and 20 (42.55%) thought the new times worked better around their lives. One respondent said:

"We have had numerous problems being locked out, being tailgated, being followed, being verbally abused. No internet. The only good thing about it are the staff, They are lovely and helpful." 

Another respondent said: "I do not like Open+, I much prefer to deal with human beings. When library users were asked (Question 9), "Are there any other comments you would like to make about Open+ or any suggestions for improvement, 53 answered and 92 skipped answering. Of the 53 responses the vast majority of responses (50), were negative. There are comments about personal safety: 

"We do not feel safe!",  "There has been no thought for personal safety, it's a crazy idea."  "I don't use the library much at all now.  Don't feel safe.  Thanks for excluding us from libraries now.  Not happy!" "Stalybridge library is only open till 7.00 because of gates, not good for me.  The library is ghostly when it is empty of customers. You should have at least one person here.  I feel vulnerable..." "I don't want to go into an empty building with no life.  Not to mention the safety aspect too."  "I was tailgated despite challenging person." "Takes some getting used to, to be alone in a public space in the evening.  I do not linger like I would during staffed hours..."  "I am very concerned about personal safety when using the library when it is unstaffed."   "As a female I feel uncomfortable attending the library during unmanned hours."

Although Tameside libraries have said that they don't consider female library users to be at risk during Open+ hours they have also said that they consider children under 16 to be at risk, even with live CCTV monitoring.  Therefore, they have to be accompanied by an adult during Open+ hours. Tameside libraries also say: "Men are more likely to use an unsupervised library building than females" (Report to Executive Cabinet 14/12/2016) but they don't say why they feel this is the case. However, there is recognition that some people may feel unsafe during Open+ hours. Tameside's active library users are predominately female (59.8%), and it is likely that many of the above comments about fears for safety, reflect the views of female library users.

Though several respondents expressed positive views about Open+ "The new hours work brilliant for me. I visited last week during Open+ hours and found the library empty and quiet..." others wanted to see more staff in libraries and felt that libraries should be an opportunity for human contact and interaction, "It is far better to deal with humans (librarians) rather than machines", said one respondent. Some respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the technology that was sometimes faulty. 

The survey findings which are consistent with other previous surveys, show that library users are predominately from a white background with (90.9%) identifying as such. They are also largely female - 16,193 active library users. Overall, there are 27,079 active library users. Tameside's  population is predominately white. The largest BME group  in Tameside are Asian/Asian British (8.94%). As of 30/11/2018, 3,074 female library users had registered for Open+ and 1,784 male library users. Tameside Libraries also pointed out that 79 library users had declined to indicate whether they were male or female. 

The former leader of Tameside Council, Kieran Quinn, when launching the 'Big Conversation', said: "It's not about withdrawing services, its about redesigning services." The council closed fived libraries in 2012, following a comprehensive review. Staff were cut and hours were reduced at the remaining eight libraries. There were originally 22 libraries in Tameside ( a reduction of 64%) and most of these were closed well before the CONDEM government in 2010, introduced austerity measures. Not only have hours and staff been cut, but also publications. In 1983, Ashton reference library had 130 magazine publications and this was down to about 30 in 2016. I recently visited Ashton reference library and asked to see a copy of the reference book 'Who's Who'. I was told it was in the cellar and that the library hadn't updated it since 2015. This is what Tameside Council call libraries fit for the 21st century. What we're witnessing with Open+ is the dissolution of the Libraries in Tameside by a Labour council that doesn't read books and is as thick as a book end.

************

CARILLION: Tale of Two Towns

ROCHDALE & TAMESIDE COUNCILS

LAST January, when it collapsed CARILLION had an ongoing contract with Rochdale council to provide around £17m in facilities management in a contract which required them to build a further 12 new schools.

At that time in a statement, Rochdale Council said: “We have been in discussions with key organisations since late in 2017, following the profits warning issued by Carillion. We have been preparing for such a possibility through the development of contingency plans.
"We are working closely with relevant schools to make sure disruption is avoided and we welcome the reassurance offered by the government today that public services will be protected.
"We recognise that this is a difficult and unsettling time for organisations working with the company and in particular for the employees of Carillion and offer our thanks for their continued commitment.”

Tameside schools

At the same time Tameside MBC which under its Labour controlled council had long been up the backside of the now disgraced company, Carillion, was involved in building five secondary schools - Isca, St Peters, St Lukes, St James and West Exe and all were completed by 2006.

But up to stage Carillion had also provided services including cleaning, catering, building and grounds maintenance for the PFI scheme.

A spokesman from Tameside council said:  
“At present we are in the business continuity phase and it is reassuring to be able to report that services provided by Carillion staff are operating as normal – all buildings are open for staff and the public, all school catering is in place and all ancillary services such as cleaning are operating.

“Tameside council and its partners in the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) are drawing up plans to ensure this remains the case going forward.

**********

Tameside Council accused of political censorship over 'Che' poster!

Geoff Oliver and wife Maria who run El Cuba Libre

AS we recently reported, a furious row over civil liberties in Tameside, has erupted after a Greater Manchester GMP licensing officer, last Friday, visited the Sportsman Pub in Hyde, demanding that the pub landlord, Geoff Oliver, remove from his pub window a Cuban flag with the image of the Cuban revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara emblazoned across it.  The pub provides Cuban food in its restaurant known as 'El Cuba libre', which is run by the landlord and his wife Maria, known as Cangui, who is from Cuba.

Although the landlord says that the flag has been on display at the pub on and off for five years, he says that the GMP licensing officer told him to remove it and warned that there could be serious consequences if he refused to do so, warning him that it could be recorded as a crime.

Mr Oliver told the Morning Star newspaper that he was woken up last Friday morning, by the local police licensing officer, who told him that complaints had been received about him displaying a photograph of a 'terrorist' in his pub front window.  He says that he was told that he could display the flag inside the pub but not from the front window and that if he didn't remove it, the officer would submit a crime report that could lead to a formal criminal investigation.

Guevara, is an iconic figure and a role model for  many revolutionaries on the left and was part of the 26th July Movement that launched a rebellion to overthrow the former Cuban Dictator Fulgencio Batista, that led to the Cuban revolution in 1959 and a Communist government led by the former president of Cuba, Fidel Castro.

Geoff, 65, from Glossop, has described the incident as attempted 'political censorship' and has refused to take down the poster. He told a local newspaper:

'I just find it unbelievable.  Every day people including many of our customers, walk round with Che Guevara's image on their T-shirts and other memorabilia. In Cuba, he's a national hero and one of the founding fathers...'

Dai Morgan, a regular in the pub, said:  'This is a disgraceful attack on free speech and no laughing matter. Who is this shocking ignoramus. Che stands with Mandela as one of the great fighters for freedom in the 20th century.'

A source told the Manchester Evening News (MEN), that the licensing officer had merely paid a visit to the pub on behalf of Tameside Council to make the landlord aware of the complaint and to 'ask if he would consider taking it down.'   According to the MEN, both Greater Manchester Police and Tameside Council declined to comment.

This type of incident is not unusual in the UK, in spite of the fact that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees the right of freedom of expression. In 2010, David Hoffman, a photojournalist, from Bow in East London, was threatened with arrest if he did not remove from his front window a poster that said 'David Cameron is a Wanker!'   In 2012, he received an apology and compensation from the police after they admitted it had been unlawful to insist that he remove the poster from his window and that this and other illegal actions by the police on the day, had amounted to 'unlawful interference with his Article 10 right to freedom of expression.'   Mr Hoffman, later displayed the letter of apology from the police in his front window, along with another poster that read -  'David Cameron is still a Wanker!'

Collapse of Carillion keenly felt in Tameside

by Brian Bamford
NORTHERN VOICES has covered story of the Carillion collapse extensively, and based on reports in the Financial Times and Construction News, had been warning of the dangers for the best part of a year before the collapse happened.  

The trade union body, Tameside Trade Union Council, had been asking for explanations of Tameside Metropolitan Council's close involvement and partnership with the backlisting  company Carillion since August 2011.  Reply came there none!

For years before the crisis the Labour leader of Tameside MBC, Kieran Quinn, continually ignored all the concerns expressed from Tameside Trade's Council and Northern Voices.  Indeed shortly before his sudden death he called for more collaboration.

*********

THE disastrous collapse of construction giant Carillion in January hit the headlines and sent shock waves throughout the country.

Building work ground to a halt across the country.

Sites were mothballed and the future of £1bn-worth of projects was placed in jeopardy.
Nowhere in Greater Manchester has the impact of the firm's demise been more keenly felt than in Tameside .

From CCTV upgrades and making public spaces safe from terror, to improved playgrounds and a proposed children’s home, a string of vital local services could all end up becoming collateral damage in the wake of Carillion’s downfall.

All face being sacrificed to foot the scandal’s unexpected bill.

The extra millions it has already cost to get projects back on track are set to have wide-reaching ramifications for the 220,000 people who live and work in the borough.

 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/collapse-carillion-devastated-tameside-scandal-15263055

Should Tameside Council have gone to 'Specsavers' to prevent Carillion debacle?

The 'Rashomon effect' describes a situation when the same event is given contradictory interpretations by different individuals involved. It hinges on the idea of competing realities, the point of view that everything depends on your point view. In an age of post-truth and alternative facts, it seems particularly endemic amongst the political-class, where truth has fallen out of favour. But as the American sociologist and politician, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once remarked: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

In Tameside, Greater Manchester, the Labour controlled council  seem quite adept at presenting alternative facts and competing realities. For example, public services don't get closed, they get 'redesigned' or 'reconfigured'. 

In 2011 the council transferred jobs and services in two departments - 'estates' and 'facilities management', to the construction giant Carillion. The council told the public that the transfer of council employees to Carillion would "safeguard jobs and services and cut costs."  Councillor David Sweeton, the executive member for business and community development at the time of the transfer, said:

"This is a landmark decision for the council and will help to ensure that in future we can meet our savings targets, protects jobs and continue to deliver high quality value for money services....It's also important to stress that any staff transferring to the partnership (Tameside Investment Partnership) will have their pay, conditions, Trade Union and pension rights fully protected."

Apart from estate and management facilities, Carillion also provided school meals in Tameside and were responsible for building the new Shared Services Centre part of the 'Vision Tameside' development at cost of over £38m. They also sponsored two primary schools in Tameside and built other schools.

The council expected that the new service centre, the council HQ,  would be open for business in September 2018. But building work stopped in January of this year when Carillion went into liquidation. When Carillion went bump on Monday 15th January 2018, Tameside Council issued a statement stating that it was "business as usual" despite Carillion's troubles and the cessation of work on the new services centre building in Ashton-under-Lyne. Two weeks later, a Labour councillor, told me:

"It's a right mess. The council are negotiating with PWC the liquidator. They have to pay a fee for negotiating with their 16 sub-contractors and every phone call they make to them." As Carillion went into voluntary liquidation, the legal position, was that all former council employees who were transferred to Carillion, lost their TUPE protection. Many of the sub-contractors were also faced with losing money or going bust.

Although Tameside Council seemed to have been taken by surprise by the demise of Carillion, all the warning signs seem to have been there long ago. Certainly, the smart money appeared to know  that there was something wrong. In April 2016, Gazelle Pension Advisory Service, advisers to the trustees of the Carillion pension scheme, highlighted that city speculators were betting that Carillion was in trouble by short-selling Carillion shares - Blackstone, the private equity firm, made £40m. In May 2017, a final report warned that Carillion's debts had reached a level that meant it could not "counter material financial shocks or disappointments" and pointed out that its pensions deficit was now equivalent to the company's entire stock market value. Carillion issued a profit warning in July 2017, which sent shares tumbling 39% and led to the resignation of CEO Richard Howson. In 2016, Howson was paid £1.5m in pay and bonuses, when the company had debts of £900m and a stock-market  value of £61m. The pension fund with 28,000 members had a £990m deficit primarily because the firm had been diverting money to dividends and debt interest rather than into its retirement schemes.

When Carillion went bust in January, a Labour councillor told me that many councillor's were unaware of the details in the contracts between Carillion and Tameside Council because it was all done by a small group of people "behind closed doors." In August 2017, Tameside Tory leader John Bell, told Tameside Reporter journalist Nigel Pivaro that there had been a complete lack of scrutiny involving Tameside Council's relationship with Carillion. He told the newspaper:

"The problem with this deal is it cannot be monitored because there is no scrutiny committee holding it to account. Therefore there is no way to ensure we are getting value for money and Carillion are delivering efficiently. Where is the accountability? We are including back bench Labour councillors here, they do not know anything (more than the opposition). Due to a lack of transparency we get to know nothing."

While Cllr Bell asserts that most councillors were kept in the dark over the deal with Carillion, it isn't strictly true that there was no scrutiny. Minutes of a meeting of the 'Strategic Planning Capital Monitoring Panel' held on 13 March 2017 state:

"On a project of this size strong and focused project management is required, facilitated in this case through the Vision Tameside steering group chaired by councillor Jim Fitzpatrick, and internal working groups...The working group chaired by the First Deputy (finance and performance) continues to meet monthly to oversee the development and delivery of the project."

As regards 'Financial Risk' - 'Affordability', 'Value for Money', 'Control Procedures', 'Costs', 'Income from subletting space', all five categories mentioned in the report were given a risk status of RED!

In his article 'Survival of Carillion crucial for Tameside' (August 2017), Nigel Pivaro looked at whether the Carillion deal was giving value for money and cutting costs. He pointed out that some of the work done on schools by Carillion was found to be 'unsatisfactory or problematic'. Russell Scott school in Denton, built by Carillion, had been beset with problems including sewage back flow and a once serviceable playing field, had been deemed unfit for purpose. Carillion were said by the governors of the school to owe the school £100,000 for energy costs incurred during the building of the new school. The provision of school meals as provided by Carillion, had come in at 26 pence per unit more than central government gave to council's to provide them, and 90 schools across Tameside, were having to meet the shortfall. Pivaro highlighted how Carillion's share price had plummeted and referred to its debts and huge pension deficit and asked:

"What then would it mean for the borough of Tameside being so entwined with the company should the worst happen and Carillion go into liquidation...The dilemma for Tameside now is should it begin to divest itself from its exclusive relationships with Carillion and ask itself is it wise going forward to have all the council's eggs in one basket with one firm on whom it depends too much."

When the council was asked if they had a contingency plan in place if Carillion went bump, they declined to respond.

So incestuous was the relationship between TMBC and Carillion that Steven Pleasant, the CEO of Tameside Council, was also a Director of 'InspiredSpaces Tameside Ltd', a company set up by Carillion and its joint venture partners to deliver educational transformation through the 'Building Schools for the Future' programme. The council also had a 10% stake in InspiredSpaces Tameside Ltd.

Following the death of the former Labour council leader and postman, Kieran Quinn in December 2017, who had close links with Carillion and spoke very highly of the company's reputation (despite being aware that Carillion had been expelled from the Labour Party conference in Brighton in 2013, for blacklisting union construction workers), he was succeeded by former tobacco worker (the fag-end of the Labour Party) Brenda Warrington. Although Quinn was hailed as a 'visionary' at the time of his death - a month before the collapse of Carillion - by his fellow Labour cronies, the council have had to cough up another £9m from its useable reserves to get the 'Vision Tameside' development completed by another contractor, Robertson Construction Group.

While the Carillion deal overseen by Quinn and his cabinet colleague Brenda Warrington, doesn't seem to have cut costs, safeguarded jobs or delivered "high quality value for money services" as promised, we are now being told by Ms Warrington that 'swift action' by the council, has prevented a 'potentially disastrous situation' and the Vision Tameside development becoming a 'white elephant', in spite of being told in January, it was "business as usual." According to the Labour leader, the whole project will now cost £62.7m as compared with the £48,673,794 overall costs of the Vision Tameside programme in February 2015. 

Although the close relationship between Tameside  Council and Carillion turned into a fiasco that put the council at risk, it appears the council had no contingency plan in place in the event of Carillion its 'preferred developer' going bust. As the journalist Nigel Pivaro pointed out in 2017, "Without any plans there are fears that the borough could be beset with chaos and increased expense at filling the gaps left by Carillion." And yet, while some could see the impending demise of Carillion and that it was  likely to go bust, as it did in January 2018, the former 'visionary' Labour council leader Kieran Quinn, was arguing as late as September 2017 in 'Construction News', for a more direct and involved relationship with contractors because "it de-risks it for them." What seems obvious to many people, is the lack of vision on Tameside Council and the necessary foresight required to see and avoid impending disasters.