Showing posts with label Nan Tewari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nan Tewari. Show all posts

Tuesday 6 July 2021

The Myth of UK Housing Shortage Exposed by the Bank of England

 Guest comment piece by Nan Tewari


Given the unconscionable volumes of building going on in the borough (and elsewhere) we might hope the numbers of homeless families would be falling.  Yet this is far from being the case.  

The housing shortage rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the content of this article. It may well be time for public policy to recognise that having a home must be, first and foremost, a human right.  Housing as just an asset should be coming way down the list of what is acceptable in a civilised society when so many remain without a secure roof over their head.  

 Extracts from Posiitve Money's coverage of a Bank of England  LINK
If we look at the data, [...]. Housing stock levels have consistently risen at a higher rate than population growth even in the past couple of decades, and even in London. So, according to the laws of supply and demand, if houses were a simple consumer good, prices should have fallen – obviously not the case.

In the 1930s a typical three bed house was just 1 and a half times the average annual salary. By 1997 the average house price was 3.6 times the average salary. But in just twenty years that has more than doubled to nearly 8 times, and in London an ‘affordable’ home is 13 times first-time buyers’ salaries.


Saturday 26 June 2021

Bullying and Racial Discrimination Safely Incubating in Northwick Park Hospital’s Maternity Unit

Guest post by Nan Tewari resident of Brent, and former Commission for Racial Equality officer.

 

Northwick Park’s maternity unit is once again in the news for all the wrong reasons.  One inquiry after another, going back decades - the most recent covering 2002-2005 and 2008 - has recognised ‘poor culture’ as a particular issue.  Yet none of these reports has made direct reference to how the absence of good staff management practice (also called human resource management) has adverse impacts on patient safety, patient experience and patient outcomes.

 

My own experience over a number of years of advocating individual patient cases at the London North West Healthcare Trust, has been one of the same mistakes being repeated with impunity, meaning that the Trust is content to just get by with paying lip service to learning the lessons of incidents.  There is a complete lack of will to tackle the underlying systemic issues, relying instead on sticking plaster solutions to cover over the cracks just long enough for the serving senior management incumbents to move on up the NHS greasy pole or collect their pensions.

 

In the face of the funding and resourcing cuts facing all areas of the public sector, it is unacceptable for staff to have to labour under the added burden of being bullied and racially discriminated against.  I have personally witnessed visible minority staff at Northwick Park being spoken down to by white colleagues and having their judgement openly questioned.  This means that staff will be reluctant to speak up for patients if they believe those higher up the food chain will hold it against them. 

 

Poor culture arises in any organisation from poor management – at all levels from board downwards.  It suggests nothing good of the honesty and transparency of the NHS that enforcement of these tenets is required by Freedom To Speak Up Guardians.  It suggests an ingrained penchant for lying that the NHS has to be told it has a ‘duty of candour’, i.e. someone had to actually tell them they need to tell the truth.  

 

BACKGROUND TO BULLYING CULTURE IN NURSING LINK

 

 Extract:

A bullying culture contributes to a poor nurse work environment, increased risk to patients, lower Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient satisfaction scores, and greater nurse turnover, which costs the average hospital $4 million to $7 million a year.  Addressing nurse bullying begins with acknowledging the problem, raising awareness, mitigating contributing factors, and creating and enforcing a strong antibullying policy.

PREVIOUS INQUIRIES AT NORTHWICK PARK 

 Investigation into 10 maternal deaths at, or following delivery at, Northwick Park Hospital, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, between April 2002 and April 2005 LINK

 

An independent review of serious untoward incidents and clinical governance systems within maternity services at Northwick Park Hospital 2008 LINK


 

Wednesday 17 August 2016

Save the Brent Sickle Cell Project



Personal guest blog by Nan Tewari

CVS Training Room, Ground Floor
5 Rutherford Way, Wembley, HA9 0BP
Thurs 15 Sept, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

If you are a sickle cell patient, Brent CCG cordially invites you to trek to Wembley Park for a meeting to deliver personally, the news that it is about to close the BSCASS (Brent Sickle Cell Advisory Support Service) project 2 days after the meeting.

Brent CCG regrets it has no money (or thought) to schedule the meeting in Stonebridge or Harlesden for the convenience of a vulnerable group of patients.

Brent CCG further regrets it sees no need to include people who are at high risk of developing sickle cell either.

Brent CCG is pleased however that it does have the money to spend on expensive solicitors to fend off attempts by Brent Patient Voice to ensure the CCG complies with proper contract termination processes;  to explain why it had not undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment before making the decision to cease funding;  to give an undertaking that it would put an alternative support service in place to patients who have already seen their service relocated to Northwick Park, a mere 2 bus rides away, and so on and so forth.

The CCG recognises the project has been effective in reducing hospital out-patient and in-patient admissions.  The Sickle Cell Society has the provider contract for the BSCASS project.  The annual cost is £70,000 which pays for 2 workers.  The project was originally planned (and costed) for 3 years having started in May 2015.  

Part of the contract included an agreed joint governance structure through a steering group.  The CCG senior rep only ever attended one meeting.  The CCG had voiced no dissatisfaction with performance yet suddenly now, it is concerned that the service is not reaching enough patients.  All voluntary sector projects take time to ramp up having first to recruit staff then to set the service up.  The CCG however, seems to believe that setting up a community project just requires the handing out of money with no follow-up responsibility for any of the community development or capacity building activity necessary to get the new service going.  

Contrast this with the help and support the CCG gives to the Royal Free Hospital as provider of the outpatient cardiology service to help the RF meet its KPIs (key performance indicators) and the RF’s continued failure to fully deliver.  Better still, more than a year after the CCG was set up it was still using it’s newness as an excuse for poor performance in several areas!  Different rules for them it seems.

Re the 15 Sept meeting (no consultation from the CCG on date and time, surprise, surprise) I expect Brent CCG would appreciate some help on how a parent is meant to leave Wembley Park at 3 p.m. to get to Harlesden in time to pick children up from school.  Contributions can be e-mailed to: breccg.brentenquiries@nhs.net
 
Not sure whether the CCG will listen to sense re the meeting date/time, participation, or anything else, so do watch this space for any updates


Tuesday 9 February 2016

A personal view by Nan Tewari on the ASA outlawing the Brent CCG A & E poster






Guest blog by Nan Tewari (in personal capacity):

Last week the Advertising Standards bods issued a ruling telling Brent NHS CCG to buck its ideas up and stick to doctoring rather than spin doctoring.

OK, the ASA didn't actually say that but I do so wish it had!  Last week that intrepid ferreter out of  goings-on in Brent, Martin Francis, broke the story on Wembley Matters LINK, of the Advertising Standards Authority ruling against the 'A & E is only for life threatening emergencies 'posters.

Advertising is supposed to be accurate and advertisers of products and services have an obligation not to mislead.  One wonders whether GPs have now joined the ranks of those estimable professionals of the estate agency and second-hand car sales' worlds (with apologies as always to the honourable exceptions).  

Brent Patient Voice spent weeks corresponding with Brent NHS Clinical Commissioning Group when we first became aware of the posters emblazoned on hoardings and bus stops trying to persuade them to withdraw the misleading advert, to no avail.  Of course, it is bad enough that BPV had to 'become aware' of the posters and that BCCG didn't even bother to consult with us before launching their poster campaign.

To try to give regular readers a succinct bit of context, the relationship of BPV with Brent NHS CCG is akin to that of Philip Grant with Brent Council – enough said.

We pointed out that BCCG's own advice on its website had been uncannily accurate in stating that A & E is for life threatening emergencies AND other serious conditions.  A broken ankle isn't life threatening but I wouldn't hobble into an Urgent Care Centre with one; no siree, I'd take it straight to A & E even if I might have to wait more than 4 hours.  So clearly A & E cannot accurately be said to be for life threatening emergencies ONLY, so even more clearly, some spin doctory type had done some spinning and come up with offending poster.

You may well ask why cash strapped BCCG would COMMISSION (ha ha) said posters. entailing design, printing and pots of glue to stick said posters up.  Perhaps Transport for London was running a cut-price promotion on its bus stop hoardings and some clever COMMISSIONER at BCCG thought they could please their Department of Health masters by using public money to place the blame squarely on the public shoulder for the soi disant A & E crisis.

I say 'so called' crisis precisely because people presenting to A & E are assessed (triaged) at the front desk and then either treated by the on-site Urgent Care Centre or are referred through to the full A & E service, so for the most part, people are NOT accessing A & E in droves, inappropriately.

Anyway, the ASA rules and Brent NHS CCG makes contrite apology.......... well, in a parallel universe perhaps.  Instead, BCCG writes off the entire episode as insignificant because - it arose out of ONE complaint.   The fact that BPV has ELECTED patient reps on its committee counts for nothing.  In fact, BCCG has a proud tradition of wanting to hand-pick the patients it prefers to talk to rather than being respectful of the wishes of Brent patients themselves who have elected their own reps which allows those reps to act independently without fear or favour.

Contrast the BCCG arrogance with the approach of South Worcester CCG whose spokesman said: “We welcome the findings from the Advertising Standards Agency”.  [Ackn. Evesham Journal]

And finally, I leave you with news that BCCG's next advertising campaign will focus on ophthalmology, tackling colour blindness where BCCG hopes to persuade us that black is white.

In keeping with the tenets of this blog, herewith my Declarations of Interest -

Elected Co-chair of Harness Locality Patient Participation Group
Steering Group member of Brent Patient Voice (writing in a personal capacity)
A patient registered with a Brent GP practice
A very rare user of A & E (once falling over in school playground many moons ago)

Nan Tewari

Sunday 8 November 2015

Causes for concern in Brent NHS provision

Peter Latham, Chair of Willesden Patient Participation Group and Member of the Steering Group of Brent Patient Voice, has given permission to Nan Tewari for this extract from his November 2015 Newletter to be published on Wembley Matters as a Guest Blog. It gives an interesting, and at times worrying, insight into current developments in local health provision.

-->
The national NHS news remains worrying.  Today we have news of junior doctors voting on a strike.  A new OECD report says that Britain now comes low in the international league tables for most categories of national healthcare.  Male expectation of life at birth comes 14th out of 34, and 24th for women.  Cancer 5 year survival rates are 21 out of 23 nations for cervical cancer, and 20 out of 23 for both breast and bowel cancer.  For surviving a heart attack we come 20th out of 32 nations, and for surviving a stroke 19th out of 31 nations. For unnecessary hospital admissions for asthma or lung disease due to poor care at home we are ranked 22 out of 34 nations.   The OECD estimate that to bring the NHS up to just OECD average performance would require an extra 26,500 doctors and 47,700 extra nurses at a cost of an extra £5 billion per year.  Britain currently spends £2,100 per person on healthcare, slightly below the OECD average.  Another report this week suggests that one quarter of all cancer diagnoses are made only when the patient goes to A&E already having symptoms so that their average survival time is poor. 

At our local Brent level there continues to be much paper activity at Brent CCG but not very much to report about actual changes put in place.

At the Brent CCG Governing Body meeting on 4 November 2015 the Deputy Chair Doctor Sarah Basham announced that the Brent CCG Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Wise is leaving.  She did not give any reason and did not announce a replacement.  This is unfortunate at a time when Brent CCG have moved from an annual financial surplus to Mr Wise’s report of an underlying financial deficit of about £1.3 million as at September 2015.  The CCG has filed a financial recovery plan as required by NHS England by 31 October 2015.  This needs to be set in the context of an annual budget of about £375 million.
Brent Community Cardiology Service & other Brent Planned Care projects.
The new Brent Community Cardiology Service provided by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust that started in March 2015 at the Willesden and Wembley Centres for Health and Care is improving on many of its early problems.  There are now clinics at both centres each weekday.  More specialist cardiologists have been appointed although not all have started yet.  There was a gap in the contract specification with no provision for diastolic heart failure.  The CCG has now decided to issue a contract variation to cover this when the projected volume of patients and their needs have been clarified.
I have been appointed as a patient representative on the monthly contract review group for this service.  The main continuing concern for patient safety is on the 14 day contract maximum waiting time for urgent cases from GP referral to first offered appointment.  Mr Robin Sharp Interim Chair of Brent Patient Voice has waived doctor/patient confidentiality in the public interest to reveal that when referred by his GP for atrial fibrillation in June 2015 his first offered appointment was with a 62 day wait.  No explanation has been given. At the monthly meeting on 4 November with an agenda item for waiting times as at 30 October no figures were published for current waiting times.  It was said by Brent CCG that the figures will only be published after they have been verified. So patients have no confirmation that all or any patients assessed as urgent are being offered a first appointment within 14 days.  I requested the figures ‘subject to verification’ but this was refused.  Brent Patient Voice will now report this problem to Healthwatch Brent with a view to notification to the Care Quality Commission.
At the Brent CCG Annual General Meetings on 2 September and re-run on 14 October in answers to my questions the chair Doctor Etheldreda Kong confirmed that the 2012 ‘Planned Care’ business case for transferring about 13 specialist adult out-patient services out of hospital in 5 ‘Waves’ into new community clinics under the slogan ‘Better Care Closer to Home’ has been discontinued after the introduction of just the Wave 1 new ophthalmology service provided by the commercial provider BMI (who run the commercial Clementine Churchill Hospital at Sudbury Hill), and the new Brent Community Cardiology Service provided by the Royal Free whose problems are reported above.  

This project has been currently replaced by much less ambitious schemes e.g. just for physiotherapy instead of the major Wave 2 new integrated multi-disciplinary, musculo-skeletal (MSK) service project for which the procurement was discontinued in March 2015 following which  Brent CCG estimated  £713,000 had been spent on it.
Brent CCG A&E Advertising Campaign: “A&E is for life-threatening emergencies only”.
This advertisement has cropped up at bus stops in the borough etc and also carried the Brent Council logo.  Brent Patient Voice has complained that it is false and misleading and made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.  BPV has given examples of non life-threatening emergencies that justify admission to hospital through A&E e.g. a penetrating eye injury.  Brent CCG has not challenged this and it is notable now that the wording on the Brent CCG website headline slide show has now been altered to say ‘A&E is for emergencies only’.

Brent CCG Whole Systems Integrated Care (WSIC) Project with Brent Council
This imposing sounding project has run into difficulties from lack of funding.  It proposes an integrated care plan just for elderly people with one or more long term conditions such as heart failure or asthma. Part of the aim is to reduce the need and cost for unplanned hospital admissions.  A WSIC pilot in part of the borough was planned to make sure the systems would work.  This pilot has now been abandoned for lack of funds.  The current proposal is to start the scheme across the whole borough in April 2016 without this pilot testing.
Brent CCG Commissioning Intentions 2016/17.
At the Governing Body meeting on 4 November the ‘final’ draft Commissioning Intentions (local health services purchasing plan) 2016/17 was approved.  The plans can be found on the Brent CCG website and include feedback from the patient involvement and consultation events including the Health Partners Forum on 7 October 2015.  I have been unable to discover the closing date for the online patient survey.

Thursday 24 September 2015

Time to ask if Butt is fit to hold office?

The Kilburn Times has published an article LINK on the out of court settlement by Brent Council in the Rosemarie Clarke racial discrimination casewhcih was reported on Wembley Matters last Friday. LINK

Deciding to challenge an employer on such issues is always stressful but Brent Council's stance on the matter has added to the stress as Nan Tewari pointed out in her statement to the Kilburn Times:

Rosemarie is relieved that the original employment tribunal case is over. Her priority now is to try to recover her health, which has hit rock bottom as a result of Brent’s ill-treatment of her throughout the period from her submitted resignation in 2013 right up until the 11th hour of the case being settled out of court. 

The tribunal went through everything in great detail. It went through all so-called disciplinary charges and it was very clear they were made up and supported by documents that weren’t accurate.”

Unfortunately this is not the end and Rosemarie’s recovery will inevitably be hampered by the council leader having effectively caused damage to her reputation by the imputation in a public statement, of a justified finding of gross misconduct against her by the council. She is worried about what the future holds for her and this will inevitably impact on her recovery.
The role of Muhammed Butt, the Brent Council leader in the case is deeply disturbing. He sought to undermine Philip Grant when he tried to raise this matter at Scrutiny LINK , heckled him at an earlier Council meeting and after the last Council meeting interupted me when I was speaking to Helen Carr about her disgraceful attack on Philip. Despite other Labour councillors being aghast at Carr's conduct, Butt gleefully congratulated her on her attack and asked for a copy of the statement she had read out. 

Helen Carr has been made to apologise to Philip Grant and other councillors.

Muhammed Butt has not.

It is surely time for Labour Party Region, the Labour Group and Labour Party members to ask if Muhammed Butt is fit to hold his current office.

Saturday 19 September 2015

A salute to Philip Grant for his work on the Davani case

Nan Tewari, who first raised the issue of the behaviour of Brent Council Human Resources on this blog LINK wrote the following comment on the post below about Brent Council settling the Rosemarie Clarke case 'out of court'. I think her comment deserves more prominence.

What stands out in this sorry saga is the power of one individual's tenacious struggle to expose the truth and how that struggle carried out in the public domain, i.e. Wembley Matters, bolstered its effects to ensure a massive degree of success.

Philip Grant's relentless pursuit of matters of fact in this case, together with Martin Francis shining a light on that pursuit, has had the powerful effect of seeing off Cara Davani, Andrew Potts and Christine Gilbert.

After stringing out the Chief Exective 'interim' role for 3 years, Brent Council and Gilbert would have been quite comfortable for her to throw her hat into the ring for the permanent position and for her to have been appointed based on her sterling record of failure to follow basic procedures and nurturing conflicts of interest.

Andrew Potts, business and personal partner of Davani, emerged as a beneficiary of the legal department restructure that had been conducted by Davani and signed (nodded?) off by Gilbert.

Davani herself was secure enough to work on adding such unlikely strings to her bow as taking on responsibility for equality and diversity as well as wanting the acclaim of a Business in the Community award to trumpet the Council's equality achievements as a means of countering the public disgrace at the Watford Tribunal and the public disrepute she brought the council into, for blatant race discrimination.

And Philip's efforts have also exposed for all to see (the video of the council meeting would probably warrant an 18 certificate in the scheme of these things!!) the underlying ill manners and discourtesy of Cllr Butt and Cllr Dr Helen Carr BA (Hons); M Phil (Oxon); Cert TEFL; Dip; DPil who appear singularly unable to understand the balanced deportment required of public figures.

So at a time when it appears that we the public are powerless against those in power, Philip Grant has led the way in showing that we can put the frighteners on public institutions whatever they may choose to admit or however much they may attempt to conceal.

Philip, we salute you.

Thursday 2 July 2015

Brent Council Race Equality Award condemned

Following yesterday's revelation that Brent Council was a finalist for a Race for Opportunity award the organisation has received messages from local people about the council's record in this area. Here are two of them:


I am not sure why Race for Opportunity is surprised that BAME representation is decreasing when RFO itself is actively contributing to this state of affairs.

Black staff in Brent are reeling from the shock, as am I, of hearing that RFO has shortlisted Brent Council as a finalist for its RFO Award.

One only has to enter "race discrimination Brent council" in a search engine box to find out how the council's director of HR (acting in cahoots with her friend the chief executive, in further cahoots with the council's employment solicitor, aka director of HR's business and personal partner) was found guilty by an employment tribunal of race discrimination and victimisation of a black manager.

One has only to read some of the Wembley Matters blog articles to find out how disgusted Brent residents are at the council's total failure to investigate this HR director's wrong-doing and initiate disciplinary proceedings. LIN

All of the miscreants in this disgraceful case are desperate to redeem themselves on their CVs for their future employment prospects (the HRD left at the end of June with a payoff, nearly a year after the tribunal exposed her unacceptable behaviour, her partner has followed her and the chief executive's contract will be up some time this month.

They will undoubtedly be thanking RFO profusely that they can now say that they steered the council to being shortlisted for the award. Absolute shame on Race for Opportunity, an organisation that I have hitherto admired.

Googling stuff is so easy to do these days, RFO - not always accurate I know, but such a good idea to avoid promoting the very people that would be anathema to the professed RFO values. Even "Private Eye" has run parts of this dsgraceful story, so it seems only RFO is in the dark.

I will be copy- posting this blog piece on the Wembley Matters blog.

Nan Tewari
former Branch Secretary, Brent Nalgo (now Unison)

I write in disbelief regarding the the nomination of Brent Council for an award from your organisation....it's not April Fools Day yet is it??  Your spokesman is reported as saying that Brent puts " race equality at the heart of their activity"....ouch!!!  Are you aware of the following facts? 

1. Brent was found guilty of racial discrimination in the case of Rosemarie Clarke.   
2. The judge stated that Brent was guilty of bullying, intimidation and constructive dismissal.  
3.The decision in the case was so damning that the judge said that " Brent had no reasonable prospect of success" on appeal. Yet still Brent wasted Council taxpayer monies on fruitless appeals. 
4.The compensation award against Brent is likely to be made in September - perhaps coinciding with your awards ceremony. The exemplary damages are likely to be significant, and the total award against Brent is suggested to be between £500k and £1m.  
5. Brent engaged in a farcical internal review - led by Council Deputy Leader -of its H.R.practices after the case, despite calls throughout Brent for an independent review.   

I would ask you to reflect on your nomination. I am copying this e-mail to interested community parties. 

 Cllr John Warren

Tuesday 9 June 2015

Reliable source reports that Cara Davani has resigned her position on Brent Council

A reliable Brent Council source reports that Brent Human Resources staff were called into a meeting yesterday to be told that Cara Davani, head of Human Resources had resigned. I am still seeking offiicial confirmation from Brent Council that this is the case,

It was perhaps no coincidence that Carolyn Downs, the new Chief Executive Officer, whose appointment will be confirmed at the next Full Council, was in the Civic Centre yesterday.

Cara Davani has been on annual leave.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who wrote the report on Brent Human Resources is currently on holiday.

Pressure has been on the Council to take action since an Employment Tribunal found that Cara Davani and Brent Council had racially discrminated against Rosemarie Clarke, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. LINK

Fiona Ledden, also named in the case has already left Brent Council and Christine Gilbert will leave in the summer.

As recently as April 30th Cllr Muhammed Butt sat with Cara Davani at the Scrutiny Committee, in an apparent act of solidarity, when Philip Grant tried to speak to the Committee about the Employment Tribunal case. The Committee voted not to hear him. At one point Butt heckled Philip Grant. LINK

Except for Cllr Daly members of that Scrutiny Committee have now been replaced. 

A quick search of this blog will reveal Philip Grant's tireless attempt, backed by meticulous research, to persuade Brent Council of the need to take action on this issue.

If the news is confirmed Philip and Nan Tewari,  who first wrote about the case, deserve thanks as active citizens for standing up for truth and transparency in local government. 








Sunday 8 February 2015

Does the Rotherham Report resonate in Brent?


An ex Brent Council worker, forced out of her job and silenced by a compromise agreement, has sent me Eric Pickles’ summary of the Casey LINK  report into Rotherham Council.  She remarked, ‘familiar, isn’t it?’
Of course not everything applies equally to Brent, and some perhaps not at all, but there are enough similarities to be of concern. Make up your own mind about which apply.
·      Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council
·      There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness which has cemented the council’s failures.
·      Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion
·      The council is currently incapable of tackling its weaknesses, without a sustained intervention.
·      The council lacks political leadership.
·      It is directionless and is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be, and how it will get there.
·      It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members to properly represent the interests of local people and businesses.
·      Some councillors, have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or their positions of responsibility. For example the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistle-blowers.
·      It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.
·      Management is ineffective.
·      There is no cohesive senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive.
·      There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around.
·      There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in Children’s Services.
·      Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and don’t get translated into change.

The Casey Report finds overall that Rotherham Council failed to Listen, Learn, Challenge and Improve. They found insufficient evidence of clear managerial leadership, not of political leadership to ensure officers were held to account for delivery. Members blamed officers for failure to progress and officers blamed members for lack of leadership.

The Report shows what might have been achieved by an independent report into Brent Council, rather than the internal Pavey report. A request for a review, sent by Nan Tewani to Eric Pickles, has still to receive a response. LINK
Inspectors saw regular reports to the Cabinet and Scrutiny committees, but not the effective challenge we would expect from elected Members. The notion of challenge has been misunderstood and misinterpreted as bullish questioning. Challenge means setting aspirational targets, knowing how far to stretch the organisation, asking searching questions, drilling down into information and data, ensuring targets are kept to and agreed actions implemented. It also means recognising organisational inertia and doing something about it; identifying when people are struggling, finding out why and getting alongside them, overcoming barriers and working out solutions.P65
One illustration of this disconnection between vision, plans and practice is the Council’s equalities plan and single equality scheme. The documents are clear,aspirational and include a summary of good practice. However, we found that this was not rooted in the day-to-day experience of staff. We set these matters out i more detail elsewhere in considering political correctness and race. The point here is  that whilst plans and policies look appropriate, or even good, they bear little relationship to what inspectors found at the frontline. (p70)
Inspectors were told that  in Children’s Services only “60-80% of staff are having Performance Reviews, with HR spot checking more than anything”. Inspectors did not find this to be at all adequate. We would expect the vast majority of staff, with few exceptions, to be having performance reviews so they know what is expected of  them and how their work contributes to the delivery of the Council’s plans. Inspectors concluded that some staff did not understand the Council’s vision; a number were clearly confused about what was expected of them and this hampered their performance in terms of day to-day service delivery (p70)
Note: Pavey found that in two ‘non-management’ workshops, 45% and 30% respectively of Brent staff had not had an appraisal in the last 12 months and more than half had not had sight of their team or service plan.

Scrutiny in Brent has been an issue since the incoming Labour administration reduced it to one Committee in May 2014. It was also an issue in Rotherham:
However, it is not clear how effective it has been in holding Cabinet Members and senior officers to account for their individual performance and decision-making  Inspectors could not find much evidence of how scrutiny had changed practice or policy making. P75
Where Councillors have scrutinised other agencies, eg aspects of health, they have been more effective and robust. However, not enough Members really know how to get underneath information presented by officers, and the organisation has not properly resourced and facilitated effective scrutiny. It was generally acknowledged that the scrutiny team was small and disconnected from the Senior Leadership Team.  P77
Inspectors concluded that overview and scrutiny had been deliberately weakened and under-valued. The structures and processes look superficially adequate, but the  culture has been one where challenge and scrutiny were not welcome. P76
There are also findings that relate to the budget process and planning cuts:
However, Inspectors found that the overall approach to finance planning was not based on a clear and political strategic vision. The Improvement Board recognises this and is working to develop one. In the absence of this vision, the budget process has been led by finance. All departments were asked to find a quota of savings, with some protection for frontline services. This approach has delivered the bottom line, but with serious consequences. For example, some services no longer have the capacity to function effectively. We were particularly concerned about the level of funding for central regulatory functions and those which will drive transformation, like legal services, organisational development, strategy, and resources to ensure community cohesion. P83
It is  in the area of Human Resources that comparing Rotherham with Brent becomes most telling:
Generally, inspectors found the Council too willing to take the path of least resistance rather than ensuring it did the right thing for individuals or the organisation as a whole. We have concluded that whilst the Council has followed its own procedures, these have not always ensured that it has taken, and continues to take, appropriate action against staff potentially guilty of gross misconduct. P130
Settlements can leave issues unresolved in the case of grievances. For example, one staff member was offered severance when she complained of being bullied. There were counter claims against her by others saying she was a bully. Because the case was not properly investigated, it is unclear whether the matter was resolved by the complainant’s departure. Where severance is used instead of disciplinary action procedures being followed through, it sends the wrong message to the workforce and managers. It may not be an appropriate use of public funds, particularly where dismissal could have occurred if due process had been followed. This was acknowledged by the Council. P132
The above point is particularly interesting in the light of the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case and the different treatment of a white member of the Corporate Management Team  which led to the finding of racial discrimination as well as victimisation and constructive dismissal.
Grievance cases were too frequently dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In two cases where this had occurred, Inspectors considered there was clearly some evidence of poor conduct by managers. In another case, Inspectors noted that the disciplinary process appeared to have been concluded without seeking evidence from all third party witnesses. 
At times, little effort appeared to have been put into seriously exploring issues raised through grievances. For example, a complaint about potential institutionalised racism was apparently dismissed without investigation on the basis that it was ‘unsuitable for a grievance process’. We make no comment on the merit of this particular case, except that it should have been properly looked into. P133
Whistle-blowing and the treatment of whistle-blowers was an issue in Rotherham as it is in Brent: 
Inspectors have concluded that RMBC goes to some lengths to cover up information, and silence whistle-blowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so for others.
“I’m just worried about reprisals of a personal nature.” (A councillor)
“We’ve all been made aware of the (whistle blowing) procedure,but no-one dares ever use it, because if they did, eventually it would come back to bite them in the backside and they would be bullied out of the organisation”. (A whistle-blower P134)
Staff in RMBC have spoken to Inspectors of being afraid to speak out, told to keep
quiet, instructed to cover up, and of a culture where “if you want to keep your job,
you keep your head down and your mouth shut.” 
A significant number of people we interviewed were clearly afraid of what might happen to them if they spoke out. 
Inspectors considered detailed evidence in three specific cases where people who blew the whistle felt they were marginalised, bullied, harassed and victimised as a result. 
In two cases, whistle-blowers claimed they were deliberately restructured out, one
from the Council and the other from a provider working closely with the Council
under a contract. In a third case, following a similar pattern of marginalisation the
person left. Inspectors recognise that sometimes whistle-blowers may have other agendas and those who approach inspections can be aggrieved for all sorts of reasons. We have borne this in mind when reviewing the cases presented to us and have nevertheless formed a view that in these specific cases there was sufficient truth in the matters raised to be a cause of public concern.
It is clear from the report that correct paper policies and procedures are not enough. It is what happens day to day, and people's experience of management's handling of the big issues of respectful treatment and equality which is important and that is what has concerned Brent Council staff.

One person at least will be able to see if this report resonates with Brent. Lorraine Langham, late of Ofsted and Tower Hamlets, and recently appointed Chief Operating Officer for Brent, was one of the inspection team for the Casey Report.