Category Archives: Hove

1st Brighton People’s Assembly

Ahead of the People’s Assembly at Westminster on 22nd June, anti-austerity campaigners are meeting to build resistance to cuts to public services in Brighton & Hove on 30th May 2013. The doors open at 6pm for live music, displays and stalls. The venue is the Brighthelm Centre, North Road, Brighton.

From 7pm onwards a number of high profile speakers will talk to the assembled campaigners, including Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, Mark Steel, the comedian, Hilary Wainwright, the editor of Red Pepper, Owen Jones, the journalist and author of Chavs, Romayne Phoenix, of the Coalition of Resistance, Clive Bryant, the Regional Chair of the PCS union, Kelly McBride, of the University of Sussex Students’ Union, Andy Richards, of Brighton & Hove Trades Union Council and Kayla Ente, of Brighton & Hove Energy Services.

From 8pm there will be discussion groups (women and the cuts, benefits and poverty, impact of privatisation, culture against austerity, Labour movement against austerity, European and international campaigns) and a film screening. Registration is free here.

image

Pioneering ‘no eviction’ proposals become Green Council policy

This is the Brighton & Hove Green Party’s official press release on the no-evictions policy:

Green-led councillors in Brighton & Hove yesterday fulfilled the party’s pledge to introduce a policy saying that no city council tenant should be evicted from a council-owned home just because they cannot afford to pay their bedroom tax.

Brighton & Hove was the first city in the country to see such a declaration and yesterday afternoon it continued to lead the way on bedroom tax evictions when its plans become council policy.

It is two months since the housing committee chair, councillor Liz Wakefield, made a commitment to introduce the policy, describing the so-called ‘spare room subsidy’, or bedroom tax, as “immoral and harmful legislation from this morality-free coalition government“.

In her final meeting as chair of the committee, before the post moves on, councillor Wakefield saw the commitment fulfilled when fellow councillor Phélim Mac Cafferty proposed the Green’s no eviction policy, which was seconded by all Green councillors present and then approved unanimously by the Green, Labour and Conservative councillors serving on the committee.

The policy ensures that the council may continue to use all usual means to pursue non-payment other than bailiffs or evictions.

Councillor Wakefield said:

“The Green council is proud to lead the way in fighting the bedroom tax and pleased to make it clear to our council tenants that we will not send the bailiffs round to evict them solely because they are unable to pay the coalition government’s unjust, unscrupulous and often unaffordable bedroom tax.”

Councillor Mac Cafferty said:

“The bedroom tax is one of the cruellest components of a cruel coalition attack on the poorest and most vulnerable people. As Greens, we could not stand by while people might face eviction as a result, so we’ve taken a national lead with this new council policy. We urge other councils to join us and make this government’s plans unworkable.”

Caroline Lucas MP added:

“I congratulate councillor colleagues on taking such a principled stand against this heartless government policy which is both immoral and unworkable.”

Speaking for the Brighton & Hove Green Party, chair Rob Shepherd concluded:

“This is a radical policy from a radical party, telling the coalition government it cannot have its own way on bedroom tax and welfare restructuring. And it’s a policy that offers reassurance to many council tenants across the city at a time when they desperately need it. No other party would have brought such a relief to Brighton & Hove residents.”

The policy takes immediate effect.

Jason Kitcat responds to the Green Party’s policy on pay modernisation

This is the official press release from Brighton & Hove Green Party on the pay restructuring proposals for Brighton & Hove City Council staff:

A meeting of the Brighton & Hove Green Party earlier this week overwhelmingly agreed that it could not support any Brighton & Hove City Council pay offer now being made that would leave staff worse off.

The council’s pay offer, which it suggests will affect about 10% of staff, varies from employee to employee, so each offer is now being individually communicated to staff members by their managers during a 90 day ‘staff consultation’.

Hundreds of staff face a drop in take home pay, offset by one-off, lump-sum compensation packages; the council has stated that, as a result of allowance changes and the compensation, some affected staff will be better off while others have to decide whether they feel the compensation is enough to offset their overall loss. This is an individual decision.

Much play has been made on social media that individuals may lose up to £95/week, or more than £4,000 a year. However, unofficial sources have recently revealed that a reduction of that level applies to just three employees and does not take into account their compensation package, which is worth about three years’ losses.

Most staff face lower reductions and lower compensation, generally worth between two and three years of loss, sometimes a little more.

The complete picture is not this simple but it seems clear that once the compensation is gone, low paid staff will be living on even lower weekly take home pay. This has angered staff and it’s unacceptable to the Brighton & Hove Green Party, which has resolved to campaign against it.

BHGP chair Rob Shepherd said:

“The party’s made it clear it cannot support a final offer that appears to leave council staff with a cut in their consolidated take home pay. These include some of the city’s lowest paid workers and we understand how they must be feeling.

“We recognise that the offer particularly benefits women who, it seems, have not been treated fairly under the existing payment structure. It goes without saying that women should be paid the same as men in comparable situations and we support creating a fair and gender-balanced pay structure. But it is not right if low paid people of either sex end up with a loss of income to achieve that balance.

“We’re also disappointed with the council administration’s decision to delegate pay negotiations entirely to council officers, meaning the administration now has no say in what’s being proposed. This is a council offer, not a BH Greens offer. If there are pay cuts on the table, they are not in our name.

“We hope that, as a result of the party’s intervention, the Green administration will find a way to take back control of the process and ensure the council will look again at any offers that result in consolidated pay losses.”

Green MP Caroline Lucas said:

“Since the negotiations began, I have made my opposition to any cuts in take home pay very clear.

“I am therefore disappointed that, whilst some will gain from this process, a number will face a reduction in the money they have to live off each week.

“This is unacceptable. I know from the many constituents who have written to me about this issue that they agree.

“So too does the Brighton and Hove Green Party, whose members have voted to condemn the offer and also express dismay that responsibility for the pay negotiations was handed to council officers.

“With the support of the local Green Party, I have pledged to campaign against proposals made to workers that will lead to a loss of pay, in accordance with the local and national party’s democratically agreed anti-cuts and anti-austerity policies.”

Rob Shepherd added:

“We also condemn the city’s Labour and Conservative parties for creating the mess that the council is seeking to manage. They are quick to criticise the Green administration yet they created the problem.

“Going back decades, both parties have presided over agreements which look blatantly unfair to some parts of the workforce and especially women. Both parties permitted what look like unethical, unequal deals. And both parties were warned time and again by council officers that they needed to sort it out but they bottled it in fear of industrial disputes.

“Whatever the current state of the pay offer, it is utterly hypocritical of Labour and Conservatives to say anything other than ‘sorry’.”

“However, it’s more important that all politicians now pull together in the interests of some of the city’s lowest paid workers. These people must be at the heart of whatever we do.”

Responding to the party’s decision, council leader Jason Kitcat said:

“I very much understand and sympathise with the concerns expressed in the local party motion.

“Members of council staff have just received the council’s offer to create a fair and clear system of allowances which completes the final step of the ‘single status’ process. There is now a 90 day consultation period for staff to consider the offer, how it will affect them and respond to their managers with their views.

“I believe it is important to not prejudge that consultation, how staff may consider the proposals, nor any negotiations which I hope will follow.

“During this consultation period I am confident that the council continues to be open to any suggestions from staff and unions that could further improve the offer whilst ensuring it remains legally and financially viable.”

Green MP supports Cityclean staff against Green Council

This morning Caroline Lucas, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion attended the Hollingdean depot, currently occupied by workers who are taking wildcat strike action against Brighton & Hove City Council, to support their battle against pay cuts which the Council officers wish to impose on them. She was accompanied by Mike Jones, a Green Councillor in Preston Park ward.

Caroline Lucas MP at the Hollingdean depot of Cityclean, 9th May 2013

Caroline Lucas supports the Cityclean staff. Click to enlarge.

These workers have decided to reject the compensation package on offer. Although the City Council is administered by the Green Party, the local party overwhelmingly voted to support the Cityclean staff in their dispute. The Council Leader, Jason Kitcat refuses to acknowledge either local or national party policy on pay cuts. Consequently, plans are being prepared by several of his colleagues to force him out of his job. That might mean them bringing down the administration of the Council. One councillor, Mike Jones has declared that he will leave the Green Group on the Council if the pay cuts are imposed.

Caroline Lucas MP and striking Cityclean staff, 9th May 2013

Caroline Lucas MP and striking Cityclean staff

To call this situation a disaster for the Green Party is quite an understatement. If it is not resolved very quickly to the satisfaction of those opposing any pay cuts, it is likely to be the end of the Green Party. It will haemorrhage members and it’s electoral support will be set back a generation, which will effectively kill the party.

Today should have been a good news day for the Brighton & Hove Green Party because the Council became the first in the country to declare that there would be no evictions if any of its social tenants got into arrears as a result of the so-called bedroom tax. That story could have captured national headlines. Instead, the main story in the City is about the Greens fighting one another.

The Greens are different from other parties. Most of its members and many of its elected representatives prefer to do the right thing rather than just hold onto power at all costs. I’ve been asked to draft a proposal to expel Jason Kitcat from the Party ~ I’ll be working on that today.

The time has come for every member of the Green Party administration in Brighton & Hove to ask themselves which side of this dispute they really want to be on?

The master of the blame game: Jason Kitcat

Following Tuesday’s extraordinary general meeting of Brighton & Hove Green Party, which decided to support the local Council’s lowest paid workers in their official dispute with their employer, the Council Leader Jason Kitcat has gone to ground. He’s ignored a flurry of communications inside the local Green Party’s internal systems, he’s failed to respond to text messages, emails have gone unanswered. Possibly, he’s been struck down by a sudden illness? Whatever it is, it didn’t prevent him from tweeting.

In the 36 hours since his party overwhelmingly voted against his approach to pay modernisation in the city, Mr Kitcat’s strategy has been to blame others. With considerable justification he blamed previous Labour and Tory administrations for allowing a labyrinthine pay structure to develop. Inside the party he has repeatedly refused to indicate what he considers the risks of allowing that pay structure to continue. This is the most illuminating remark he’s ever made on the topic:

Jason Kitcat tweets about cataclysms

Is that a bible I see in your hand?

He has repeatedly told Green Party members that to even talk about the reasons for the risk of a cataclysm will actually cause it to happen. He has repeatedly hidden behind the old get-out, “legal reasons.” This phrase is usually employed by journalists too lazy to explain law to their audience. “We cannot name the child for legal reasons,” is quicker than saying, “We cannot name the child because of the law protects the anonymity of children in legal matters and the judge has made a specific ruling in this case.” In the case of journalists, that’s fair enough, clearly they don’t have enough web space or TV air time to explain anything much. In the case of Mr Kitcat, the notion that him discussing legal threats against the Council or the risk of legal threats will somehow undermine the Council’s ability to defend those threats is completely specious.

Besides, the risks are well known. Briefly, they stem from the fact that staff are all paid different amounts for similar work. Since some jobs are carried out almost exclusively by men and some by women, this means that there can be claims of indirect discrimination, which employment tribunals would be only too happy to hear. The example of Birmingham City Council has been bandied about. In Birmingham, the Council faces a bill to settle the claims which is so large that it would be threatened with bankruptcy, were it not for the fact that it has large assets. It is expected to sell off some biggies, such as the NEC, to meet the payments.

Brighton & Hove City Council also has enormous assets. How much is the Royal Pavilion worth? It is the only Royal palace in the country which is owned by the people but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be owned by a private company. That is but one example.

Previous administrations tried to sort out the problematic pay structure but failed. Instead of showing political backbone, the present Green administration decided to adopt a new approach. It simply handed the whole process over to council officers. Thus, Mr Kitcat washed his hands of responsibility.

The morning after the local Green Party voted to campaign with the GMB against their own administration, a wildcat strike began amongst the city’s refuse collectors and street cleaners. The workers occupied their canteen. The Council hired scabs to do the work instead. Refuse began to pile up. Chaos is a word much loved by tabloid newspapers too lazy explain anything much but it is perhaps an appropriate summary of the situation. It as if there truly are two worlds, the real world and the paper world. We all live in the real world, with rubbish and recycling piling up, with a Green council hiring scabs, with a Green Council Leader apparently going rogue on his own party, with elected politicians turning to technocrats before a crisis. Mr Kitcat seems to live in the paper world, where none of these things matter, where so long as a procedure is followed everything will be fine, where the poisonous rag of the Brighton Argus is essential reading for the man about town. Here he is in conversation on twitter with @yokelbear, a much respected trades union activist from Hove. As with all of these images, click on them if you want a larger, clearer version to read more easily.

Jason Kitcat tweeting to a trades union activist in Brighton & Hove, contradicting him about whether chaos reigns

A clear case of denial

Here he is dealing with a straight forward request from the local Labour Party, who ask why he tweets rather than meet the striking workers in person. It’s a straight question and very easy to answer. Instead he fired off a link to a Brighton Argus story which talked about a strike by “bin men” in 2004:

Jason Kitcat tweets to Brighton & Hove Labour Party, comparing himself to their leader of 8 years previous

Finger pointing skills: 8/10, Political credibility: 0/10

Here he is again blaming Labour for his problem. The link in the tweet from Labour below goes to a statement which is barely longer than a tweet and says virtually nothing. It isn’t addressed to Mr Kitcat. He could have safely ignored it but, wait a minute, here’s another opportunity to blame someone else!

Jason Kitcat tweets blame to Labour leader Gill Mitchell

Jason Kitcat tries to finger Gill Mitchell

To be fair, that thread did continue with Mr Kitcat conceding that he was responsible for the process created by the Council officers:

Jason Kitcat tweets an admission that he is leader of Brighton & Hove City Council

Glimpse of reality

The complexity of the pay structures has arisen because of the way Brighton & Hove City Council came into being. Essentially, two local authorities, with differing pay structures merged but left the already complicated salary arrangements intact. No-one disputes that. The dispute is about whether this should be sorted out by elected, accountable politicians or by officers who don’t have to face political consequences for their actions. Since Mr Kitcat’s administration has chosen let the technocrats take over, we Greens find ourselves in the absurd position of being in the same party as an administration which plans to cut the pay of the lowest paid workers.

This is intolerable. Plans are afoot to remove Jason Kitcat as Council Leader. A rebellion is being planned amongst those Green Councillors who wish to remain loyal to their party’s clear policy. Watch this space for further details.

Brighton & Hove Green Party speaks out against Jason Kitcat’s pay negotiation strategy

The text after this italicised introduction is a resolution was passed by Brighton & Hove Green Party yesterday evening by 57 votes to 26, with 3 abstentions. In the pub after the meeting, I asked the Party Chair, Rob Shepherd, whether he had any objections to me publishing the resolution passed and he said he did not object. Previously, when he was in charge of external communications (presently he is party chair and responsible for external communications) he had asked me to delay publication of party business until he had issued an official press release.

The resolution below calls for the Green Group to instruct a particular barrister for advice. During the debate, a point was raised about the cost to the Green Group on the council. However, this is a specious point. Clearly, the Green Group currently form the administration of Brighton & Hove City Council. Therefore, the resolution calls on, in effect, the Green Group to instruct this particular barrister as the administration of the Council. Therefore, it will be Brighton & Hove City Council which instructs the named barrister, rather than the Green Group councillors.

I proposed the amendment which included this barrister’s name. I did that because it was obvious to me that there was a real risk of a conflict of interest with the lawyers originally named, who are a firm of solicitors retained by the TUC. I was not involved in the drafting of the original resolution. I voted for the amended version. There was another amendment, by Caroline Lucas MP, which was aimed to prevent party disunity; it involved the removal of some text in the resolution, which some thought to be particularly inflammatory. She voted for the resolution and spoke passionately in favour of it. Here’s the amended resolution, which was passed by the majority mentioned above:

Brighton and Hove Green Party is extremely concerned at the following communication from the GMB to the Council Pay Negotiations team:

“Based on the information we have been given verbally today, it still shows that members of ours will still lose between £5 and £95/ week, which is the same condition that the Council presented to the Unions at the beginning of these negotiations. In particular, the area that gets hit the most is 260 plus employees working in CityClean, which is the entire workforce. Today your negotiators confirmed that the make up agreement we currently have is being withdrawn, this alone is a loss of £1840 per person in the Refuse service and recycling. Also, the City Clean agreement, which was signed 2009 after the last dispute, your negotiators will not confirm if this is remaining or not. We can only take from their silence on this its matter that they will do, which will see a further £2000 cut per annum out of our members pay. Finally, shift allowance, in the case of street sweepers, one of the lowest paid in the Council, will have their annual salary cut by 25%. Plus all the other information received by your negotiators today, in regards to the way overtime is paid outside normal contractual arrangement and also a refusal to extend special schools allowance to mainstream schools where TAs are supporting those with special needs, it is with regret I have to inform you that GMB is now in an official dispute with the Council”.

On the basis of this and currently available information, Brighton and Hove Green Party:

1.    Expresses its dismay that responsibility for the strategy, direction and outcomes of these crucial pay negotiations was delegated from the Green Group (GG) to Council officers, with no provision to bring back final offers and outcomes to the GG for approval before they were submitted to the unions.

2.    Condemns what appears to be the final offer to the unions that will mean a cut to the real terms, consolidated take home pay of many Brighton and Hove Council employees.

3.    Supports the publicly stated position of Caroline Lucas MP that she opposes any cut to the basic take home pay of Brighton and Hove Council employees.

4. Asks that the GG now immediately take back control and direction of the pay negotiations with council unions, to examine the final offer that has been made and to revise it to ensure there is no pay detriment.

5.    As part of that process, asks the GG to immediately seek legal advice from Daniel Barnett of Outer Temple Chambers, London, under the Public Access Rules, on the best practical and legal means to resolve whatever equal pay issues are involved in the negotiations whilst at the same time ensuring that council staff do not suffer a real terms pay cut to their consolidated take home pay.

6.    Dissents from and condemns any outcome or final pay offer that leaves council staff with a real terms pay cut to their consolidated take home pay.

7. States that if any such offer or outcome occurs, we will campaign with the unions against it, in accordance with the local and national party’s democratically agreed anti-cuts and anti- austerity policies.

Detailed version of Brighton & Hove City Council’s pay offer to its staff

Earlier this morning, I published an email which was sent out to the staff of Brighton & Hove City Council. Here is the more detailed version, which the staff could only access through their own intranet. I have reformatted it a little to make it readable in this post but I have not altered the text one bit. The typographical errors were all in the original document.

Pay and Allowances Modernisation: The Employer Offer May 2013

CONTENTS

Introduction
Why we have reviewed this?
This sets out the rationale for the changes
Consultation and communication with our workforce
This sets out our the reasons for consulting you
Target Implementation Date
This is when the council would like the new set of allowances and expenses to take effect
Employees in Scope
Who we are consulting and who is the new set of allowances and expenses would apply to
Brighton & Hove City Council’s proposals
This sets out in detail all the proposals for the new set of allowances and expenses
Managing a reduction in contractual pay or expenses
The proposals for compensating those who would suffer a loss of pay or travel/car expenses as a result of accepting a new contract of employment
Pension Protections
This explains a process that some employees could use to protect their pension
Existing Protection Arrangements
This explains what happens to employees already in receipt of formal salary protection under our Organisation Change Management Framework
Job Families
This explains what Job Families are and how work on this is being progressed.
What can I do now to understand what the impact may be?
There are some examples to help you work out how the proposals may impact on you.
What happens now?
How you raise queries and provide feedback.
Questions and Answers

Introduction

The pay, terms and expenses of employees of Brighton & Hove City Council come from a number of different sources.

  • Key terms and expenses such as pension rights and entitlement to sick pay are agreed nationally by the employers’ organisation and trade unions.
  • basic pay grades are set by the council’s job evaluation and grading system which was implemented in January 2010; and the rates of pay are set in accordance with nationally agreed pay scales.
  • Annual increases to basic pay are agreed nationally but the council has made a local commitment to a minimum living wage of £7.45 per hour.
  • In addition, a significant number of staff receive allowances and additional payments because of the nature and pattern of the work that they do. Over time the current system has become complex, is based on historic requirements, costly to administer and is no longer fit for purpose. The rates for allowances are now set by the council, after negotiation with the recognised trades unions.

The council started negotiations with its recognised trade unions, GMB and Unison, in February 2013, with the aim of seeking agreement on a new set of allowances that is fair, consistent, modern and transparent.

The negotiations have not been about making savings on the council’s pay bill but about finding the best fit that minimises any potential loss for individual staff and ensures fairness and consistency across the workforce.

This document sets out the details of Brighton & Hove City Council’s proposals for
the payment of allowances payable in addition to basic pay to enable employees to:

a) assess the impact of the proposals for them; and
b) provide feedback as part of the consultation process.

Why we have reviewed this?

The council wants to have a fair and easily understood pay system that is consistent and transparent and fit for the council’s business purposes.

We implemented the outcome of the grading review after carrying out an objective job evaluation study for employees on national joint council (NJC) terms and conditions of employment. This set out basic salary grades for posts.

The grades were introduced on 1 January 2010 and we committed then to reviewing all payments made in addition to the basic salary.

The current negotiations with the council’s recognised trade unions, have taken place with an aim to achieve a best fit and minimise the amount of any loss.

We tried to ensure that the proposals are affordable and enable us to continue to attract and retain high calibre staff, so we can continue to provide good public services at the times our customers and clients expect.

Consultation and communication with our workforce

We have been negotiating with our recognised trade unions, GMB and Unison since February.

While we have not been able to reach an agreement on an allowances package with the unions, we have agreed that we have reached a stage in the negotiations where it is appropriate to consult the workforce.

So we are now setting out the current proposals directly to you, so you can see what the impact of the proposed allowance structure may be on to you, to provide clarity and provide and seek information.

We will consult for a period of 90 days, then we will meet the unions again to consider the outcome of the consultation and to establish whether we can reach an agreement with the unions on the final package of allowances and expenses.

The process of consultation means that we may alter some aspects of the offer, as a result of the feedback we have had; but the main elements are unlikely to change significantly prior to implementation.

You will continue to receive information during the consultation period and if you are likely to see a change to your current payments, you will be sent individual information and be offered a one to one meeting with your manager

GMB and Unison will also wish to communicate about the proposals to their members and will be available to take feedback or clarify issues.

Copies of all management communications (excluding individual letters with personal details) will be made available to the trade unions.

Target Implementation Date

We are seeking, through negotiation with GMB and Unison, to agree and implement a new package for the payment of allowances in addition to basic pay.

The target date for this new package to take effect is 1 October 2013.

Employees in Scope

The proposals apply to:

  • all employees with contracts of employment, who are on NJC (Green Book) terms and conditions, including those in community schools; and
  • those who TUPE’d in on different contracts of employment but should be moved onto NJC terms and conditions.

How do I know how I am affected

If your working patterns mean you work hours outside of Monday – Friday 8am – 6pm, or if you are in receipt of an allowance in addition to basic pay, you are likely to be affected by the proposals in some way.

If you are in receipt of any car or travel payments or claim business mileage you will also be affected by the proposals.

Brighton & Hove City Council proposals for payment of Allowance and Expenses

The following set of allowances and expenses, in addition to basic pay and the rates specified, are those which the council is proposing to introduce.

These are the only allowances that will be paid and therefore, if you are currently in receipt of an allowance or expense not listed, it is proposed that this will be removed.

1. Working Arrangements

For the purpose of allowances the following definitions apply:

  • Full time hours are 37 hours per week over 52 weeks per year
  • The standard working week operates Monday to Friday 6.00am to 8.00pm
  • A night is defined as 8.00pm to 6:00am
  • Normal working pattern is an individual’s normal contractual working arrangements

2. Enhancements for Non-standard Working Arrangements

These allowances will be paid to employees on spinal column point (scp) 28 and below (ie up to Scale 6) where their normal working pattern goes beyond the standard working week.

Saturdays and Sundays

Half time in addition to the normal hourly rate.

Bank Holidays

Plain time in addition to the normal hourly rate plus a day off or Double time in addition to the normal hourly rate

Night Work

Third time in addition to the normal hourly rate for any hours worked between
8.00pm and 6.00am.

For employees above scp 28 the rules governing entitlement to the allowances for non-standard working arrangements are set out below.

  • employees who are working in services which operate beyond the standard week, and are contracted to undertake regular work outside the standard week, will be entitled to claim enhancements for non standard working arrangements.
  • staff working ad-hoc hours outside of the standard week will not be entitled to enhancements for non-standard working arrangements but will be granted time off in lieu or may be granted overtime subject to the conditions set out in section 3 below.

3. Overtime

Employees graded Scale 1/2 to Scale 6 (up to scp 28) will be required, on occasions, to work additional hours.

  • Overtime (ie additional hours for part-time staff) up to and including 37 hours per week will be paid at plain time.
  • Overtime in excess of 37 hours per week will be paid as follows: Monday to Sunday – half time in addition to normal hourly rate; Bank Holidays – plain time in addition to the normal hourly rate

Employees graded SO1/2 to M8 will be required, on occasions, to work additional hours as the needs of the job dictate. Such overtime working will not normally qualify for additional payment but compensatory time off will be allowed by arrangement with management. Payment may only be payable by exception, as agreed by an executive director and in circumstances where compensatory time off may not be accommodated.

Employees graded Scale M7 or above are required to work such reasonable additional hours as are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective discharge of their duties. Some compensatory time off may be agreed with the line manager.

4. Standby, Call Out and Sleep-In Duties

Standby

Standby is payable where an employee is required to be available to work to work in order to deal with emergency situations as and when they arise. The payment will be made regardless of whether the employee is called upon to work.

Payment is not made when an employee is not available to work, for example, annual leave or sickness.

Employees who are contractually required to undertake standby duties will receive £26.50 per duty. If they are called out then after the first thirty minutes they will be paid for any additional hours. This is paid at the overtime rate if this takes the individual beyond 37 hours or the relevant working pattern enhancement in line with the time of day/week that the call-out takes place.

The standby payment represents a period of standby for up to 24 hours.

Exceptions

Winter-Gritting standby and rates will remain as they are currently with a week’s standby at £59.53. Payments for the work undertaken when called out will be as follows:

  • Hill Top Grit
  • Standard Grit
  • Full Grit

Call Out

Employees may occasionally be contacted outside of the normal working hours. This type of arrangement would not attract a standby payment as there is no contractual requirement to be available. The post holder would however receive payment for the hours worked in line with overtime and additional hours payments.

Sleep in Duty

Employees undertaking sleep-in duties will receive £32.94 per duty. Where employees are woken from sleep they will be paid at the relevant rate (night rate) after the first thirty minutes.

Standby and sleep-in rates will be reviewed each year in line with NJC rates.

5. Part-Time Employees

The allowances set out above will be applied to part-time employees in the
same way as they are applied to full-time employees, unless specifically stated.

6. Travel Expenses

Authorised business mileage will be paid in accordance with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom (HMRC) rates.

Brighton & Hove City Council's proposed travel expenses, 7th May 2013

Passenger payments

This is paid at the rate of 5p per passenger per business mile, for carrying employees in a car or van on official work journeys.

Approved journeys using public transport will be reimbursed subject to proof
of expenditure.

We will be retaining the current support schemes for travel:

a. City car club
b. Travel warrants
c. Season ticket loans
d. Cycle to work scheme

7. Excess Travel Expenses

Excess Travel will be paid to employees whose work location changes as a result of redeployment or an office move. Employees will be reimbursed the additional public transport expenses they incur beyond £5.00 a week for a period of a year.

This £5.00 threshold does not apply to employees on scp 17 or below.

8. Subsistence Expenses

Subsistence may be claimed only in relation to approved overnight stays outside of Brighton & Hove City Council boundaries.

The maximum amounts are reviewed each year in line with the NJC pay award and the rates with effect from 1 April 2012 are:

  • Breakfast £6.70
  • Lunch £9.21
  • Evening Meal £11.43

It should be remembered that these rates are not allowances. Reimbursement is limited to actual expenditure incurred, providing that the maximum amounts are not exceeded. A claim may not be made in respect of any item without the appropriate receipt.

9. Miscellaneous Payments for Temporary Additional Duties

Any payment for a period of acting up or additional duties will be paid in accordance with the council’s acting up and ex-gratia/honorarium policies.

10. Special Schools Allowance

Those staff working in special schools will continue to receive an allowance to reflect the additional challenges associated with working in that environment.

11. Market Supplements

Market supplements are paid where a shortage of skills in a particular area mean it is difficult to recruit and retain staff with the appropriate skills/experience. Any market supplement payments are temporary and must be agreed in accordance with the council’s market pay supplement policy. Where warranted, such payments will continue. Market supplements are reviewed annually.

12. First Aid

This is paid to individuals who volunteer to be first aiders for the purposes of their workplace and where it is not a requirement of their job role. Individuals must have a First Aid at Work qualification and be the nominated first aider for that location. The rate of payment is £8.67 per month.

13a Managing a reduction in contractual pay
Employees who will experience a reduction in contractual pay as a result of the implementation of the allowance changes will be eligible for a compensatory payment to support the change of their contract of employment. The level of payment for any will be determined as follows:

Amount of Loss

Brighton & Hove City Council's compensation package for pay cuts, 7th May 2013

There will be conditions attached to the compensatory payments and employees who chose to accept the new contract and compensatory payment will be required to sign a compromise agreement.

The compromise agreement will set out the conditions for the acceptance of the compensatory payment in detail but it will include that:

  • The council can reclaim 25% of the value of the payment if an individual leaves within a year of the implementation of the new terms and conditions.
  • The individual waives the right to bring claims against the council for unfair dismissal, redundancy, unlawful deduction of wages and other benefits, unfavourable treatment of part-time workers and/or fixed-term workers, equal pay or breach of contract, amongst other things.

13b Managing a reduction in travel expenses

Employees will be offered a compensatory payment equivalent to the annual essential user lump sum where this is part of their current contract.

Where employees have a protected entitlement to an essential user lump sum or other car or travel payments they will be offered the equivalent of three months payments as a lump sum payment.

These compensatory payments will have the same conditions attached to them as
set out in paragraph 13a above.

14. Pension Protections

If pensionable pay is reduced employees have the following option for the calculation of their final pay for pension purposes.

This option is available only to employees who experience a reduction in the pensionable pay within ten years of their last day as an active member of the local government pension scheme for that particular employment. The employee can choose their total average annual pensionable pay from any three consecutive years ending 31 March, within the period of thirteen years ending with the last day the employee is an active member of the pension scheme.

If an employee wishes to take advantage of this option he/she needs to write to the Pension Fund Administrator at least one month before leaving the relevant employment.

Employees cannot make use of this option to use earlier years’ pay in working out benefits if the reduction or restriction was as a result of the loss of a temporary increase in pay, or resulted from a reduction in grade in order to take retirement benefits on flexible retirement.

15. Existing Protection Arrangements (excluding car/travel protections – see paragraph 13b)

Existing protections currently in place and being paid for up to three years in accordance with the council’s Organisation Change Management Framework will continue in accordance with that scheme.

16. Job Families

Background

Last year the council made a commitment in its People Strategy to introduce Job Families for all NJC employees. This was endorsed by P&R Committee in February 2013.

Job Families were successfully implemented for school support staff some years ago and we are now in the early stages of designing a Job Families Framework for the rest of the council. We will consult fully on the model and process for implementation in the coming months. (Note: this consultation will be separate from the current consultation exercise on the allowance package.)

Why are we doing this now?

It would not be rational to modernise the system of pay without also looking at how we organise job groups and develop staff in similar roles. Implementing Job Families alongside changes to pay will lead to a clearer, more modern structure that supports delivery of the council’s priorities in the future.

What is a Job Family?
A Job Family is a group of jobs with similar characteristics and which are engaged in similar work (eg administrative roles) represented by generic role profiles describing the key work activities together with the skills, knowledge and
experience required at each level.

What are the benefits of Job Families?
Introducing Job Families is designed to provide a range of benefits for employees, managers and the organisation as a whole. These include:

  • Workforce flexibility; financial constraints and customer and client expectations mean there will be an ongoing need to redesign services. Job Families provide for greater flexibility of the workforce across the organisation and greater opportunities for development and employment across services, including redeployment opportunities.
  • Clear progression pathways for employees; feedback from staff consultation has shown that a high and increasing proportion of employees believe that opportunities for progression are not clear. Job Families enable us to define the requirements to progress to a higher level, and encourage lateral progression to different service areas.
  • Streamlined job evaluation; as with allowances, over time the number of individually defined and evaluated job roles has grown and now stands at over 1500 unique jobs. The current system of job evaluation is therefore cumbersome and expensive to manage. A more appropriate framework of around 140 role profiles is being developed to reflect the council’s major work activities and specialist functions, and to support more efficient organisation design.
  • Employee development: Job Families make it easy to define the competencies and skills required at each level in a family group and enable skills, knowledge and behavioural frameworks and development programmes to be tailored to suit each family.

When will Job Families be implemented?

We are currently working with managers on the number, levels and content of job family groups. Once we have a set of proposals we will be formally presenting these to the trade union.

What can I do now to understand what the impact may be?

You should make yourself familiar with your rota or the allowances you claim/are paid. Please have a look at the examples below that may help you understand the potential impact on your pay.

The council will also publish an automatic allowance calculator on the wave which will allow employees to enter basic details about their working pattern and will then calculate your potential total salary.

Example 1 – Night Working

Kemala Hayek is a scale 4 Care Officer on SCP 19, her hourly rate is £9.2272. She works 14 hours a week between the hours of 8pm and 6am. Under the new allowance scheme she can claim for 14 hours at 1/3 of her hourly rate in addition to her basic hourly rate.

To calculate this, first of all divide her hourly rate by 3.

£9.2272 ÷ 3 = £3.0754

We then multiply this figure by the number of hours that she works at night

£3.0754 x 14 = £43.06

Therefore Kemala will earn an additional £43.06 per week for working between the hours of 8pm and 6am.

Example 2 – Working Nights on a Saturday/Sunday

Ravi Srivastav is a Scale 3 Night Security Officer on SCP 17, his hourly rate is £8.7234. He works a 12 hour shift on a Saturday night starting at 8pm and finishing at 8am.

Under the new allowance scheme he will be able to claim for 10 hours at 1/3 of his hourly rate for working at night, and also 12 hours at half time for working on Saturday night and Sunday morning.

To calculate this, first of all divide the hourly rate by 3.

£8.7234 ÷ 3 = £2.9078

Because Ravi is working 10 hours during which the night rate applies we can do the following:

£2.9078 x 10 = £29.08

Then we need to work out the hourly rate for the weekend working part of the
shift, therefore divide the hourly rate by 2, therefore:

£8.7234 ÷ 2 = £4.3617

Because Ravi is working 12 hours over the weekend we can do the following:

£4.3617 x 12 = £52.34

Now we have the amounts for each allowance we just add the two amounts
together:

£29.08 + £52.34 = £81.42

Therefore Ravi will earn £81.42 for his night shift on a Saturday night.

Example 3 – Saturday/Sunday Working

Lucy Jones is a Scale 1/2 Kitchen Assistant on SCP 13, her hourly rate is
£8.0050. She works 3 hours every weekend.

Under the new allowance scheme she will be entitled to claim an enhancement of half time on her hourly rate in addition to her basic hourly rate.

To calculate this we do the following:

£8.0050 ÷ 2 = £4.0025

Because Lucy works 3 hours on the weekend, to work out the addition to her salary we do the following:

£4.0025 x 3 = £12.0075.

Therefore Lucy will earn an additional £12.0075 per week for working 3 hours at the weekend.

Example 4 – Bank Holiday Working

John Brown is a Scale 5 Home Care Support Worker on SCP 25, his hourly rate is £10.1701. He is contracted to work 5 bank holidays a year at 7.4 hours per bank holiday.

Under the new allowance scheme he will be entitled to claim double time on top of his normal hourly rate, or claim a time off in lieu. For the purpose of this example we shall assume that he would rather get paid double time on top of his normal hourly rate.

To calculate how much he gets per year for those bank holidays we first of all multiply his hourly rate by 2 as its double time, therefore:

£10.1701 x 2 = £20.3402

This gives his hourly rate for the bank holidays, then, we multiply that by the number of hours in the bank holiday which as above is 7.4 hours, therefore:

£20.3402 x 7.4 = £150.51748

This gives the amount he will earn per bank holiday.

Example 5 – Overtime Working

Piotr Wojcik is a scale 6 Team Leader on SCP 28, therefore his hourly rate is £12.2885. He has worked 12 hours of overtime over the course of a week.

To calculate the amount he can expect to receive, firstly calculate the hourly rate he will receive for the overtime hours he has worked, as all overtime is paid at time and a half the following calculation is done:

£12.2885 x 1.5 = £18.433

Now that his hourly rate has been calculated we can multiply this by the number of hours overtime he has worked:

£18.433 x 12 = £221.196.

Therefore Piotr will receive an additional £221.20 in his salary for the week in which he worked this overtime.

What happens now?

If you have any questions about the consultation exercise or your particular position, raise this through your line manager in the first instance.

Managers will be told who is likely to be affected by the proposals.

Your manager will then arrange a one to one meeting with to go through the details and feedback you may have.

If you are not affected by the changes, we would still welcome your feedback.

Questions and Answers

Didn’t we introduce a new pay and grading system in January 2010 after the Single Status review? Why are we talking about pay modernisation again? We introduced a robust system of job evaluation at that time and many staff were affected by changes to their basic pay. However, we didn’t make changes to allowances and additional payments and we now need to finish off the work that was started to make sure all of our pay and our terms and conditions are clear and consistent.

Why can’t we leave allowances and additional payments as they are? Our current arrangements have emerged over many years for a wide range of reasons. This means that they are complex, historic and costly to administer. We need a system that is consistent, modern and transparent.

Is this about saving money?

No. While some local authorities are looking at making changes to pay or terms and conditions to reduce costs, this does not apply to us. Of course we need to make sure our pay system is affordable but we are not looking to make reductions on our overall pay bill.

What’s the timetable?
May – early August 2013: Consultation Period
August 2013: Union meetings and feedback from consultation
September 2013: Offers made to staff
1 October 2013: Implementation of new allowance system

Timescales may change depending on the final feedback and discussions with the unions.

When will I know whether this affects me?

The negotiations are focused on allowances as we want to introduce a payment scheme that applies to everyone, that is transparent and also easy to administer. Our aim is to minimise as far as possible the number of people who may lose some pay. We expect most staff won’t see a change to their pay and some will see an increase.

We will keep you informed and when we make the final offer, you will have the chance to discuss how this affects you and your pay.

What does ‘introducing job families’ mean?
At the same time as reviewing allowances and additional payments we want to introduce job families. We made a commitment to do this in our People Strategy. At the moment there are over 1500 different job roles in the council, we think this is too many. A simpler system would make it easier for people to move around the council to different roles and we could plan a better learning and development programme for staff.

What will happen if negotiations cannot reach a conclusion?

We’ve set aside several weeks for negotiations which should give all parties sufficient time to explore all options. We are optimistic that we can find an agreeable way forward.

Why are senior management handling the negotiations, not the elected members?

At Policy and Resources Committee, members agreed the principles and parameters for the negotiations and authorised the chief executive and directors to implement a modernised pay and terms and conditions package in accordance with the law. A negotiating team has been appointed by the chief executive for this purpose.

Why are the negotiations confidential?

The union representatives and officers who are party to the negotiations will be discussing a wide range of ideas and options as they work towards modernising allowances, including the impact they could potentially have on different groups of staff. These are ‘collective’ negotiations on behalf of all staff and it would not be appropriate to play out every option publicly as many ideas will be discarded for better options through discussion and negotiation. At the end of negotiations both the council and the unions will be able to share where we’ve got to with all staff.

Email sent to Brighton & Hove City Council staff about their pay

This is an email sent by Brighton & Hove City Council to its staff with regard to its attempt to comply with equalities legislation and to reduce the complexity of pay categories. This email was sent at 2:38pm today and was entitled, “Pay and Allowances Modernisation – The Employer Offer.” Each member of staff is expected to work out how their own pay will be affected. This offer was verbally communicated to the staff unions a few days ago, with the result that the GMB declared itself now in official dispute with the Council because some of its members will have their pay cut. The GMB says that some of its members will lose £95 per week. This evening there is an extraordinary general meeting of Brighton & Hove Green Party, to debate a single resolution, which in broad terms supports the GMB.

Dear colleague

Pay and Allowances Modernisation

I am writing to you today to share the details of the offer that we have made as part of the recent negotiations on our proposed allowances and expenses scheme. Our purpose is to have a single set of allowances and expenses that are consistently paid across our workforce.

We have been negotiating with a clear aim of achieving the best and most affordable offer while keeping any losses to a minimum. We have now agreed with the unions that we should tell all staff about the proposals on changes to allowances and expenses. It’s important that you understand the whole offer and work out how, or if, you will be affected by the changes.

While I recognise that there is never a good time for change and that the economic challenges that we are facing are difficult, we can’t put this off any longer and we cannot continue to do nothing. I believe that the proposals reflect a genuine best offer that is fair, consistent and affordable. We presented this offer to GMB and Unison this week and are now starting a formal 90 day consultation with you.

Our proposals are:

  • Our normal working week will be 37 hours
  • Hours worked at weekends, as part of your normal working week will be paid at half time in addition to the normal hourly rate
  • Hours worked after 8pm and before 6am will be paid at a third time in addition to the normal hourly rate
  • Hours worked on a bank holiday, as part of your normal working week will, in addition to normal pay for the day, be paid at an enhanced rate of double time or at time plus an additional day off
  • All authorised overtime, over 37 hours per week, will be paid at a rate of time and a half; overtime on bank holidays will be at double time.
  • Payment for stand by duties will be £26.50 for up to a 24 hour period and payment for a sleep-in duty will be £32.94.  There are no changes to winter gritting standby and duty rates
  • All business mileage will be paid at 45p per mile for cars, 24p per mile for motorbike and 20p per mile for bicycles
  • Special Schools Allowance will continue
  • First aid volunteer payments will continue
  • Claims for subsistence can be made for overnight stays outside the city
  • Market supplements will be paid in accordance with our current policy
  • Acting up and ex-gratia payments will be paid in accordance with our current policies

 Any current allowances or payments not mentioned above will cease.

Your manager will be arranging briefings with you and you can read more in a detailed copy of the proposals available on the Wave or in paper form. There are four staff meetings taking place on Thursday. You are welcome to go along to one to find out more.

10am – Hove Town Hall banqueting suite and Brighton Town Hall council chamber

1pm – Hove Town Hall banqueting suite and meeting room 1 at the Brighton Centre

If the proposals affect you directly, your line manager will arrange a one to one meeting with you to discuss the details. Many of our staff will not be affected by these changes. I would urge everyone to take the time to look at the offer in more detail. 

There are some groups of staff who stand to gain financially through the changes but there are also some that lose. I know that this will be disappointing and worrying for those who will see an overall loss in pay as a result of these changes. We have made sure that our proposals include compensation for those staff affected. The negotiations were never about making savings and the offer is slightly more expensive overall to the council but will be more efficient and cost effective over time. It will help greatly towards becoming the modern 24/7 council that we are aspiring to be.

We welcome your feedback on the offer which you can do through your one to one with your manager, to your head of service or by email to [email address redacted].  Likewise if you have any further questions, you can ask the same people.

Once the consultation period is over, we will meet again with the unions and I will contact you with more information.

Regards

Penny Thompson

Chief Executive

The 2013 March for England in Brighton: Questions for Sussex Police

Updated: 30th April 2013, with Sussex Police’s answers in italics. The police cannot become properly involved in the political debates about protest. All they can present are the facts as they saw them. Thus, my questions have been factual. Aside from observing that Sussex Police have not answered all the questions below, their answers are published without further commentary. The text below is my original post text as are the questions.

Here’s a list of straight questions, which Sussex Police need to answer following Operation Wheeler on Sunday 21st April 2013. Operation Wheeler was the name given to the massive policing operation in Brighton, which related to the “March for England”, a protest by a collection of far-right organisations. Yesterday, I published my personal account of the 2013 March for England.

Each question is numbered. I invite Sussex Police to reply to each specific question, using the contact form on this blog (they can identify themselves in a twitter Direct Message to verify answers received at this end come from them ~ I suggest they include a code in both the contact form and the Direct Message). My readers are welcome to put these questions to Sussex Police themselves. I’ll publish all the official answers in this post under each question.

Reports suggest that ten police forces were involved in Operation Wheeler. However, Sussex Police was in charge on the day. Therefore, all these questions are addressed to Sussex Police.

As a preface to the answers, please can we request that contrary to your usual ‘Comments Policy’, you publish our whole comment in full at first (including this introduction). That only seems fair since we have answered your questions in exactly the format requested.

It should also be noted by your readers that you were offered a face-to-face meeting with the operation commander, Supt Steve Whitton, prior to the answers being provided in writing. We suggested that you could record the full conversation in audio or writing, to publish here.

This was our preference, as it would allow you immediate reaction to, or clarification of, the answers provided. It would have reduced the time it has taken to provide the answers in writing. It would also, in our view, have provided a more meaningful and natural dialogue, particularly as some of your questions are a little loaded or without context, so have resulted in short answers without the ability for immediate two-way clarification.

The invite to meet with Supt Steve Whitton stands and, while we will do our best to engage with any resulting debate here or on Twitter, we must balance this with the time taken already to address your questions.

These answers have been compiled from information on operational systems and conversations with a number of people involved in the operation.

1. Who was in charge of Operation Wheeler?

Superintendent Steve Whitton.

2. What public order experience did the officer in charge have prior to 21st April 2013?

Supt Whitton is one of the most experienced public order commanders in Sussex Police and has commanded many public order events. He is nationally-accredited public order gold commander.

3. Why did Sussex Police allow the “March for England” to occur in Brighton on 21st April 2013?

There was no reason to request the local authority to make a banning order through the Home Secretary.

One of the guiding principles of our common law is that a citizen is free to do anything not forbidden by the law. Citizens of the UK are entitled to expect that peaceful assemblies, processions and demonstrations will not just be permitted, but will be positively facilitated by the police. This is emphasised by the European Court of Human Rights in a stated case which talks of the obligation of the state to go beyond non interference and extends into facilitation.

Police only have the power to approach the chief executive of the local authority, who in turn must approach the Home Secretary, in order to seek a ban. Only a procession can be banned and there is no power to prevent an assembly. The police can only approach the council where they believe serious disorder will occur and they cannot prevent this with the resources and legislation available to them. It is seen as a severe measure in relation to breaching people’s Human Rights.

4. Did Sussex Police consider the impact of the “March for England” on local residents, including the Scouts who subsequently decided to cancel their annual St George’s Day parade? If not, why not? If so, why was priority given to the “March for England”?

A multi-agency partnership meeting considered the impact at great length over several months of planning and Sussex Police engaged at length with local residents, businesses, traders and other interested parties. The scouts informed us that they had decided to change the date of their parade. There had been no conversation with them prior to that decision. With all policing operations, the impact on the wider community is balanced against the rights of others.

5. Why have Sussex Police allowed a man from Portsmouth to organise a march in Brighton for three years running?

There is no geographical restriction on organisers. It is not a factor we can legally consider.

6. Are Sussex Police aware of any local people joining the “March for England?” If so, how many? How many of those are what is commonly called “street drinkers”?

We do not know what percentage of the participants in the march were local.

7. What was the cost of Operation Wheeler?

The cost of the operation is still being established and will be made public in due course. It does take some time to collate all this information as we are dependent on receiving costs from mutual aid forces and we need to establish how long everyone involved was on duty and what other costs may have been incurred. We strive to keep costs as low as possible, but have already publicly indicated that the total cost will amount to several hundred thousand pounds.

8. Did Sussex Police have problems with the batteries in their cameras?

The Logistics Officer is not aware of any replacement batteries being requested during the operation.

9. Why did Sussex Police give permission to an organisation which has form for provoking large scale counter-protests to take over Brighton Seafront?

The seafront was established as the best option for the march, predominantly taking in consideration our key priority of keeping everyone safe – public, participants and police. The route was agreed by a multi-agency partnership meeting and considered the impact on city centre routes and business areas that were affected in previous years.

10. Does Sussex Police accept that its decision directly led to a massive loss of business for Brighton’s commercial economy, at a time of economic hardship and on a day which would otherwise have been lucrative?

We are aware that there was a negative impact on the city and the effect that the march would have was considered by the agencies and partners who discussed at great length the location of the march. While we recognise the problems experienced by local traders, the geographical scale of the impact was less than previous years and the majority of the city was unaffected directly by the march and the counter protestors. A neighbourhood policing inspector is personally visiting businesses along the route to better understand the impact the day’s events had on both residents and businesses.

11. Did Sussex Police consider suggesting an alternative venue for the “March for England”? If not, why not? If so, which venues were considered and why were they rejected? Was Preston Park considered?

A number of options were considered by the multi-agency partnership meeting. An open area such as Preston Park would be very difficult to effectively police with the prime objective of public safety without significantly increasing the number of police officers required to prevent violence and disorder. Had the march taken place elsewhere we consider that the impact would have been far greater.

12. Does Sussex Police accept that it, effectively, invited two groups of violent people into Brighton on 21st April 2013, because the “March for England” always attracts opposition, some of which is violent?

Sussex Police did not invite either of the groups and does not accept that point. We have an obligation, as outlined in answer 3, to facilitate peaceful protest and we are asked to do so for various groups in Brighton and Hove.

13. Why didn’t Sussex Police request that the “March for England” pay for the policing operation to protect it?

The march and counter protest are not organised commercial events, but protests and therefore do not incur policing costs. The role of the police is to facilitate people’s right to peaceful protest, which we do regularly for a variety of groups and causes. Brighton and Hove hosts the second highest number of protests in the UK, after London.

14. Did Sussex Police ask the “March for England” to make any financial contribution to the policing costs?

No and we don’t do. This could set a dangerous precedent or expectation for us to ask for cost recovery for every form of protest, which would be outside the spirit of current legislation and likely to be highly unacceptable to the public.

15. Did Sussex Police’s annual budgeting arrangements include a specific sum for policing the March for England? If not, why not? If so, what was that sum?

There are no budgeting arrangements considered in the annual budget for specific events, protests, etc., although there is overall contingency planning for those expected to take place across Sussex.

16. Why didn’t Sussex Police have any form of public address system on 21st April 2013? Was this option considered? If not, why not? If it was, why was it rejected?

Officers leading teams at various locations on the route of the march and its environs were equipped with portable megaphones and this proved sufficient. The matrix signs around the city warned of disruption and road closure, signs at Brighton railway station provided similar information and a large engagement process was undertaken to inform as many people as possible by many methods, including online, social media and traditional media updates on the day.

17. Did Sussex Police announce in advance that protesters would be arrested if they protested in zones designated for the opposing protesters?

No. It is not an offence to be in an ‘opposing’ protest zone. However, we would discourage this in the interests of personal safety and to prevent disorder and would consider arrests if offences were committed.

18. Do Sussex Police accept that no-one was arrested for protesting in the opposing protesters’ designated zones?

Yes, as it is not an offence.

19. Do Sussex Police accept that known supporters of the “March for England” entered the zone designated for the counter-protest and protested there?

We were made aware at the time that there may have been a handful of March for England supporters in the designated protest area for the counter protest. We were not aware until it was raised with us and it was then monitored, with action taken where appropriate to keep everyone as safe as possible.

20. Do Sussex Police accept that the “March for England” supporters who entered the official counter-protest zone were not arrested, despite that causing offence to those who considered themselves officially separated from the “March for England” supporters?

Being ‘offended by association’ is not a criminal offence. No arrests were made from either March supporters or the counter protest purely as a result of groups mingling, in line with answer 17.

21. Do Sussex Police accept that erecting a barrier which they themselves could not easily cross to remove “March for England” protesters from the counter-protest zone was a mistake, which could easily have prevented them from keeping the peace had more serious trouble occurred?

No, the barriers proved very successful and no serious disorder occurred in the areas where the barriers were deployed. Officers were deployed on both sides of the barriers in these areas and were very successful in limiting movement between opposing groups.

22. Do Sussex Police accept that deliberately and conspicuously photographing peaceful demonstrators is likely to alienate them from the police? Do Sussex Police regard anyone with a megaphone or a banner as a likely criminal?

Officers in many roles, including Evidence Gathering Teams, who were clearly distinguishable, were deployed to support the operation. No group was singled out or treated differently in relation to the use of cameras.

23. Why did Sussex Police search journalists on their way to cover the “March for England” under powers intended to combat terrorism?

A mini-bus containing nine journalists was stopped in an intelligence-led operation at Hickstead. They were treated as any other members of the public while searches were legally made.

One officer erroneously issued a ticket suggesting that the search was conducted under the Terrorism Act and they were quickly advised of their mistake, which we admitted to on Twitter the same day. The search was under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which does not make a distinction based on people’s employment.

Officers and media relations staff liaised with many journalists covering the march, providing information throughout the day, facilitating interviews with the police commander and continuing with updates into the evening and next day. Officers on the ground were briefed about dealing with media representatives and provision was in place for any accredited journalist to be allowed access to any areas, including the otherwise closed route of the march.

24. Do Sussex Police accept that Operation Wheeler was stopped too early because groups of people connected with the “March for England” and part of the counter-protest continued running fights around the city after 6pm?

No. While the operation nominally concluded at 6pm, enabling the stand down of the vast majority of officers, thus reducing costs, a number of units remained deployed and were able to deal with the few sporadic incidents that occurred after that time.

25. Do Sussex Police accept that its decision to pay for coaches for the “March for England” supporters either amounts to or directly leads to a widespread perception of helping the “March for England”?

While we are aware of this perception, the decision to use one coach inbound and two outbound was taken to reduce the risk of disorder or violence and the potential for bystanders to become inadvertently involved. We are satisfied that the decision was justified by its success in moving the participants in and out of the city without incident. This tactic has been used successfully to minimise disorder for similar marches in other areas of the country.

26. What other protest groups has Sussex Police given coaches to in the last five years?

None that we are aware of, but we are also not aware of any protest taking place where the level of opposition would be likely to pose a threat to those involved that required this tactic.

27. Why didn’t Sussex Police pay for coaches to help counter-protesters to travel to Brighton & Hove City centre?

The buses were not provided to help people into the city, they were provided to mitigate an identified risk to safety of all those involved. The buses ensured that people were able to exercise their rights without the threat of violence and ensured we were able to bring the march to a swifter conclusion.

28. Does Sussex Police accept that assisting anyone to demonstrate a partisan cause, by paying for their transport, is likely to lead to a breakdown in public trust and confidence in the police because it inevitably breaches police neutrality?

No. The provision of transport was for the mitigation of risk and in the interests of the safety of everyone involved – the public, participants in the March and the counter protest, and the police. If we had been approached by an organiser from the counter protestors, then consideration would have been given to offering the same facility. The same considerations would be made for any group in the future where the risk level was similar.

29. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest people wearing masks and take them into custody?

Sussex Police had the power (Section 60AA) to request the removal of masks, hoods, etc. and if the person refused they could be arrested.

30. Do Sussex Police accept that in at least one instance they wrestled a mask wearer to the ground violently, rather than arresting him/her and taking him/her into custody?

While we are unable to identify the specific incident from your description, this probably would have been an arrest. While it may appear rather robust, if a person is resisting arrest or struggling in any way, officers are trained to secure them swiftly and safely with the minimum risk to both the arrested person and the arresting officer(s).

31. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest “March for England” supporters wearing masks or other face coverings?

If a person wearing a mask or other face covering complies with a police officer’s request to remove it, there is no cause for arrest.

32. Why didn’t Sussex Police arrest “March for England” supporters making offensive gestures (eg raising their middle fingers, making Nazi salutes)?

A number of people were arrested for using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of/provoke unlawful violence. Two have subsequently been charged and will appear in court next month. The affiliation of an arrested person is not recorded as part of the custody process.

33. What steps have Sussex Police taken to identify those “March for England” Supporters who made violent threats on twitter in advance of the march?

Investigations are continuing into a number of threats and potential hate crimes and where it is possible to identify the perpetrators, action will be taken. These incidents were not confined to one particular faction.

34. How many police officers were injured on Sunday 21st April 2013?

There were no serious injuries, although one officer was withdrawn from duty after suffering a pulled ligament in his leg.

35. How many other people were injured on Sunday 21st April 2013 in connection with events relating to the March for England?

We do not hold this information conclusively, as we are not responsible for the treatment of patients. We would only be informed if injuries were associated with a crime.

36. Why did Sussex Police declare Operation Wheeler a success?

Sussex Police declared that it was satisfied with the operation. Our absolute priority was public safety, but we also had responsibilities to respond to crime and disorder, and to facilitate peaceful protest. These priorities potentially conflict at some times in protest situations and require careful balancing.

Overall, we believe we delivered an operation that kept the city relatively peaceful and free from serious disorder, despite the very high risks assessed and experience of similar events elsewhere in the country and previously in the city.

The final fascist “March for England” in Brighton

Yesterday various fascist groups mustered their followers with the intention of frightening the good people of Brighton on a sunny St George’s Day. This was their fourth visit to my home town and, arguably, the most disastrous for them so far. Their numbers were few, their march was pathetic, they were massively outnumbered by counter-protesters. Following the fiasco of the 2012 March for England, Sussex Police adopted a different strategy, namely to separate the visiting fascists from the local counter-protesters. As yesterday’s sunny afternoon turned into a chilly evening, the police were congratulating themselves on a successful operation. From a purely policing point of view, it appeared better than last year, when they found themselves overwhelmed by the numbers of anti-fascists, lost control of their plan for the day and even failed to arrest one fascist thug whom they had wrestled to the ground.

However, that superficial analysis breaks down when the facts on the ground are examined more closely. With a helicopter, approximately 700 officers, some mounted, three dozen riot vans and various roads sealed off with large metal barricades which would be the envy of any commercial event, their advance preparation was better organised. They arranged low level barricades, behind the bannister on the sea front, into a chain of pens which were slow and cumbersome to climb over. Presumably the idea was that the anti-fascists could not disrupt the march by bursting through that dead zone. Unfortunately, the police couldn’t easily cross the barrier either. Despite declaring in advance that protesters would not be tolerated outside their various designated zones, when known fascists entered the anti-fascist zones, the police could not enter it to contain them. I witnessed a group of six flag waving fascists at 12:53pm well inside the anti-fascist zone (opposite the Thistle Hotel). Local people called across to the police to remove them but for several minutes the police just stood around as if they were little more than lollipop men. I shouted over a request that they deal with the situation but the response was, “Stop shouting!” After many requests one police officer wandered over to his side of his barricade and asked the fascists to climb over it. Looking somewhat reluctant, he put a foot on the railing and said, “Are you going to climb out or do I have to climb in?” The fascists argued with him. He did not climb in. Two protest liaison officers were eventually seen strolling up towards the illegal immigrants, as if they had all the time in the world. They were escorted away but not, so far as I can tell, arrested.

Sussex Police barriers between the beach and the seafront road on Sunday 21st April 2013

Bad luck if that’s your bicycle

This incident was repeated several times before the fascist march began. On the one occasion I witnessed when the police did climb across their barrier, it looked like a training exercise performed by Dad’s Army. When Sussex Police sat down to plan their day (Operation Wheeler), did they not ask themselves how they would cross their own barrier if they needed to?

Prior to the march beginning, known fascists were allowed to wander freely around town, waving flags and chanting “Eng-ger-land”. This behaviour is indistinguishable from their method of protest on their official march. Therefore, it is fair to call it protesting. Yet they do not seem to have been arrested for it. At 1:12pm two flag waving fascists managed to squeeze through a gap between two of the blue police vans shown above so that they could confront the hundreds of people occupying the roads to the North of the roundabout by the Palace Pier. They were pushed back by mounted officers fairly swiftly. Were they arrested? I don’t know, but Sussex Police should be able to answer that question.

More worryingly, no-one in Sussex Police seems to have thought about any form of public address system. With 150 uncooperative fascists and 3,000 angry locals to deal with, the police left themselves with no method to communicate with large parts of the crowd. Instead they seemed to rely on officers barking orders to whoever was in the mood to listen. At one point I found myself in conversation with several of the local councillors and the MP for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, all of whom were were protesting against the fascists. One of them informed me that the police had promised them that they would have a public address system. Why was this promise broken? Surely it could not have been for want of financial resources?

Perhaps that last question should be directed to Katy Bourne, the Conservative Party Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner. She is in charge of allocating the resources for Sussex Police. Every section of Brighton’s political and social community declared its opposition to the fascists, except the Conservative Party. Sadly, the local Tories spent most of 2011 and much of 2012 concentrating their fire power on whipping up hatred against Traveller groups living on the fringes of the city, with the result that they were widely accused of racism. Their silence on this year’s arrival of the blatant racists echoed their failure to comment the year before. The combination of their refusal to condemn racism on our streets, their encouragement of racist attitudes and one of them now running the police is exactly what people most feared when the Police and Crime Commissioner posts were created. With each step, the police look increasingly politicised. Of course there are some sections of society which will never trust the police. The tragedy is that now many of us, who previously were prepared to accept that policing is a complicated job, now distrust the police because of this politicisation. The Tories tell us that operational decisions remain purely in the hands of the Chief Constable but he can no longer be regarded as independent when a politician has the power to fire him and hire someone else. The Tories could easily have condemned the so-called March for England. That they didn’t must have been a deliberate decision. It sits uncomfortably with the kindly manner the police treated the fascists in comparison to the locals.

I arrived at the seafront hours before the march began. The first thing I did was ask a policeman with a camera to photograph me and take a note of my identity. I explained that I done the same thing the year before and that, consequently, the police had been able to safely ignore various unfounded allegations made against me online because they knew that the fascists had identified someone else as me (someone who threw an empty plastic water bottle). This year the policeman I spoke to refused. I was struck by them failing to understand my request. I had to explain it and the reasons for it three times. The officer with the camera told me, “We are only photographing people where a crime is committed or there is a risk to public order.” I suggested that, as with the year before, police time need not be wasted if they photographed me again. This generated a different response, “We’ve got a problem with our batteries and cannot take too many pictures.” Police officers should tell the truth, so it’s fair to presume that this wasn’t some petty lie to get me to go away. That’s another question for Katy Bourne to answer. She can talk to the officer who refused to photograph me because his colleague allowed me to photograph his number instead:

A police officer in Brighton, 21st April 2013

Luckily I didn’t have a battery problem

Later on, another police officer with a camera photographed me when I suggested to the fascists, through my megaphone, that having turned around to march back to the Palace Pier, they were now facing Mecca. Then I played them the Call To Prayer, which they didn’t seem to enjoy but with hundreds of police and their barrier separating us, it couldn’t possibly have been described as a threat to public order.

After the march, the police allowed some fascists to roam around town looking for fights, just like last year. Predictably, there were outbursts of violence around the town well into the evening. Some people blame the violence on Antifa, who were out in strength. However, Antifa only exist to prevent the fascists from taking to the streets. They don’t demonstrate on their own. Had the fascists not been given a licence to demonstrate wherever they wanted, there would have been no trouble. They were even escorted to a bar in West Street to enjoy a drink! The police showed the Antifa activists little mercy and repeatedly attacked them. At one point one of them was wrestled to the ground because he refused to take off a face mask. Yet I saw plenty fascists covering their faces. Again, it is now very hard not to see the police as a politically motivated force, much as they were in the Thatcher years. Further proof of police bias to the far right comes from the fact that Sussex Police paid for at least one coach to bus the fascists to the start of the march. I’ve been on plenty of demonstrations in my time but I never heard of the police sorting out protesters’ travel arrangements before. This is another question for Katy Bourne to address.

On the plus side, Brightonians excelled themselves in their mockery of the fascism. Unsatisfied with screaming abuse, all manner of creative counter-protest dominated the day. The top prize for sheer good humour goes to the new EDL. If you follow that link, you’ll see that it doesn’t go to the racist English Defence League but instead to the English Disco Lovers. Already they are close to their stated aim of being the first result in online searches for the EDL. Their disco danced its way along the seafront all day and proved the value of good humour as a challenge to hatred. After some of the fascists had been bussed out of the town centre by the police, I went off to speak to them. It would be inappropriate to reveal the details of that conversation now but suffice it to say that we can be confident the fascists will not dominate St George’s Day in Brighton next year. 2013 was their final march. Watch this space and the EDL website for more information. The English Disco Lovers appear at 0:53 in this video:

Yesterday should have seen all of Brighton united against fascism. Of course, no-one could have been surprised by the Tories’ attitude but the real shock of the day was seeing the local Labour Party’s official tweeter attempt to make political capital out of the fact that the Green Party administration of the City Council had previously declared itself supportive of the lawful right to protest. Early on in the afternoon, @BHLabour, tweeted, “Businesses closes and residents terrified as @BHGreens proclamation that we are a city of protest brings March for England to our city #labour

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet criticising the Green Party as if they welcomed fascists to Brighton. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party’s official twitter account created division instead of unity

This tweet was met with a storm of protest from all sorts of people, including several prominent Labour Party members and local trades unionists, many of whom could not be described as sympathetic to the Green Party, such as Caroline Penn. Ever since 1936, whenever the fascists have taken to the streets in Britain, everyone else has put their differences aside and united against fascism. Aside from the nonsensical nature of the tweet (the fascists came to Brighton before the Greens won power in the city), much offence was caused by it. Who on earth was on Labour’s Sunday shift on twitter last week? It wasn’t just a single tweet. Here’s another, at 2:26pm.

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Another divisive tweet from the Brighton & Hove Labour Party

And another, at 3:48pm:

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Labour insists on division

The decision to allow the march was made purely by Sussex Police. There is no mechanism for a political party to “apply to have march banned.” It wasn’t just three divisive tweets. Here’s another at 4:44pm:

Brighton & Hove Labour Party tweet, concentrating on division rather than unity against fascism. 21st April 2013

Will Labour explain its policy on the law on protest?

Did the Labour Party ask Sussex Police to ban the fascist march? No, they did not. By 7:18pm, the local Labour Party seemed to have come to its senses. It offered this apology:

An apology from Brighton & Hove Labour Party for creating division instead of building unity against fascim. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party makes first apology

Some people complained that this apology appeared to attempt to shift the blame onto those offended. Seeing the logic of that, Labour offered another apology, at 7:46pm:

False claim that Brighton & Hove Labour Party had removed offending tweet. 21st April 2013

Brighton & Hove Labour Party falsely claimed that it had removed offending tweets

At the time of writing this blog post, the first tweet has been removed but the three subsequent tweets, shown above, which make similar points and cannot be described as in the spirit of unity are still on twitter, for all the world to see. The Brighton & Hove Labour Party has a proud tradition of opposing fascism. It has long been involved in anti-fascist movements and must understand what unity means. Its insistence on abandoning unity against fascism is a very sad development indeed. Recently the local Labour Party suspended one of its local councillors (Anne Meadows). Will it now suspend its twitterers, who have chosen to create division rather than unite against fascism?