The murk behind Brent Council's Bridge Park deal that was opposed by the community last week

Bridge Park Complex with Unisys on the horizon

The Kilburn Times LINK today reports on a heated consultation meeting regarding the redevelopment of Bridge Park, Stonebridge, and the surrounding area including the Unisys landmark building. There were demands for the land sale to be halted.

The newspaper quotes Jay Martin of the Bridge Park Community Council as saying:
This is not a consultation, it's a fait accompli. It looks like this deal has already been done and decided. There are moral questions and legal questions to answer. There's the possibility that this whole thing might end up in a judicial hearing. 

 The moral and questions that Martin refers to are presumably directed at Brent Council's off-shore partners in this development.

The late and sorely missed Cllr Dan Filson who, while a Labour councillor, had a strong streak of independence, responded to Cllr Pavey's suggestion that tax havens had to be tackled at national level rather than local government, with this comment on Wembly Matters LINK:

I must say I was surprised that whilst mentioning the two companies involved were neither incorporated nor registered in the UK, the Cabinet paper did not mention that they were registered in tax havens namely Luxembourg and the BVI, nor that the leading shareholder in the holding company was a convicted fraudster. A quick Google search revealed this.

Possibly the council officers preparing the report felt these issues did not matter given the safeguarding phrase that the decision of Cabinet would be subject to meeting financial scrutiny (quite how these financial checks would succeed given that they had not succeeded in the months leading up to Cabinet was not made clear!).

The wider issue of the ethics of dealing with tax haven companies wasn't touched upon at all nor the fraudster angle. I understand Councillor Pavey's position that it needs government action to deal with tax haven companies (to say nothing of persons being company directors of overseas companies who, by my book, should be disqualified from holding any positions of trust in any company trading or owning land in this country).

However Brent can have its own policies; but what should they be here? The land south of the North Circular Road at Stonebridge Park has been a derelict eyesore for a couple of decades. Brent can engineer development here by intervention using such land as it has as a bargaining tool. If we take the ethical route and don't treat with tax haven companies will we get better or worse terms from other companies? Conceivably could Councillors be surcharged for not getting "best value" in a deal? Will any action happen on this site at all for another decade?

I don't know how I would respond on these issues. My disappointment was that no attempt has been made to address them before this particular decision came to Cabinet despite the identity of these 2 companies being known for some time, years even. So the Cabinet was obliged to agree to a deal involving these two companies without a financial appraisal in front if it and without a stated policy on dealing with tax haven companies. It leaves an unpleasant taste.

Ex Inspector of Taxes, Philip Grant, LINK revealed a link with Quintain:

 When offshore companies are involved, that will always raise suspicions about who is really behind them, and whether tax avoidance may be involved, although in this case you can read a little about GMH on Wikipedia:-

'The General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) is a financial holding company established in 1979 in Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg, founded by Anglo-Iraqi businessman Nadhmi Auchi.

GMH is a diverse business group with activities in Banking & Finance, Real Estate & Construction, Hotel & Leisure, Industrial, Trading & Pharmaceuticals, Communications & IT and Aviation.'

The (publicly available) details do not say in which overseas territory Harborough Invest Inc. is incorporated, or resident for tax purposes.

By chance, I have come across GMH's "agent", Nick Shattock, before, when I was an Inspector of Taxes, and he was a director of Quintain Estates and Developments Plc (having previously been a partner in a firm of City solicitors). That information is on public record, and (of course) I cannot disclose anything which happened when I was responsible for dealing with the Quintain group's company tax affairs, because of Civil Service confidentiality.

As a (past) director of Quintain (the developer behind Wembley Park), it is likely that Mr Shattock has already had dealings with Brent's Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth, Andy Donald. The report to Cabinet proposes that negotiations over the "deal" between Brent and GMH should be left in the hands of Mr Donald (as the "deal" with Galliford Try over the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was).

Persuaded? Definitely not!

In January of this year Cabinet approved the land deal for Bridge Park nd Labour defeated Cllr John Warren's move at Full Council to have it debated. The is an extract from my report of the meeting:

In the course of the resultant discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labour Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

Brent Council, tax haven companies and an alleged fraudster - Cabinet business item

Despite warnings about dealing with off-shore companies by the late Cllr Dan Filson and Philip Grant in July 2015 LINK the Cabinet is due to back a deal over the three parcels of land that make up the proposed development at Bridge Park whcih includes a replacement Sports Centre, a hotel and housing.  The companies are General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) and Harborough Invest Inc.

Filson pointed out that the companies were not registered at Companies House but instead were overseas registered, a Luxembourg Holding Company and in the British Virgin islands. This meant that the usual financial checks could not be carried out.
The founder and chairman of General Mediterranean Holdings is Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi. In 2003 LINK Auchi was convicted of fraud following his involvement in a $504 million corruption scandal centred on the French oil company Elf Aquitaine which Wikipedia says was described as 'the biggest political and corporate sleaze scandal to hit a western democracy since the second world war.'
Auchi was given a $2.8 million fine and a 15 month suspended jail sentence. Filson warned that the council is dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

The Guardian has alleged that Auchi has links with the Labour Party. LINK

After an account of the Cabinet meeting appeared on Wembley Matters Clr Filson made a comment about the Cabinet discussion, part of which read:

The wider issue of the ethics of dealing with tax haven companies wasn't touched upon at all nor the fraudster angle. I understand Councillor Pavey's position that it needs government action to deal with tax haven companies (to say nothing of persons being company directors of overseas companies who, by my book, should be disqualified from holding any positions of trust in any company trading or owning land in this country).

However Brent can have its own policies; but what should they be here? The land south of the North Circular Road at Stonebridge Park has been a derelict eyesore for a couple of decades. Brent can engineer development here by intervention using such land as it has as a bargaining tool. If we take the ethical route and don't treat with tax haven companies will we get better or worse terms from other companies? Conceivably could Councillors be surcharged for not getting "best value" in a deal? Will any action happen on this site at all for another decade?

I don't know how I would respond on these issues. My disappointment was that no attempt has been made to address them before this particular decision came to Cabinet despite the identity of these 2 companies being known for some time, years even. So the Cabinet was obliged to agree to a deal involving these two companies without a financial appraisal in front if it and without a stated policy on dealing with tax haven companies. It leaves an unpleasant taste.

The new Cabinet briefing states LINK: 

The report provides an update and seeks approval to enter into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with the “Purchaser”, a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH – a Luxembourg-registered business) as the parent company and Harborough Invest Inc (a British Virgin Islands based business), who already own part of the development site as the second guarantor of the Purchaser’s obligations under this CLSA. 


As detailed in the body of the report, officers from Brent have undertaken detailed negotiations with GMH to establish if the possibility for Brent to take a greater part in the development, and to share in the financial rewards beyond the capital receipt for the land. Unsurprisingly, GMH and their partners would see another equity investor as further complicating a project that has already been in gestation for longer than expected. It is also possible that the partners would see another equity investor as unnecessarily diluting the financial returns that can be made from the development. 


As the Purchaser is a newly-created subsidiary company with no assets, then there are risks to Council if it fails to perform its obligations under the CLSA and associated documents, as there would be no substantive entity against which to take legal proceedings for breach of contract, etc. To mitigate this risk, both GMH and Harborough will be named as “Guarantors” in both the CLSA and the Overage Deed, being the two documents which contain substantive obligations upon the subsidiary company. As such, both GMH and Harborough will guarantee to perform the obligations of the subsidiary under these two documents in full (as if they themselves were named as the main contracting party), should the subsidiary fail to so perform any obligation. Updated financial checks against both companies prior to exchanging the CLSA, will be carried out to ensure that they have sufficient financial strength to perform the obligations under the CLSA and Overage Deed if called upon to do so as a result of the subsidiary’s default

Further, As GMH and Harborough are both foreign-registered companies, GMH’s lawyers will obtain (at GMH’s own cost) formal legal “opinion letters” from reputable law firms qualified in Luxembourg and BVI respectively in favour of the Council, to confirm that these guarantee provisions will be legally binding upon both companies, and that the Council could pursue either or both company through the English courts if they in turn defaulted on these guarantee obligations.

It should be noted that GMH has suggested that it may ask the Council to transfer different parcels of the Council’s Land and the salvage yard to different subsidiaries to be set up later by GMH, in order that a separate subsidiary would hold the land intended for the residential element of their development, the affordable housing element, the hotel element, the retail element, etc. This is permitted under the CLSA, and is not uncommon where developers wish to have different land uses held by different entities, but would not alter the overall extent of land which the Council will transfer or the total amount of monies which the Council receives for that land at completion of the transfer(s). Even in these circumstances, the guarantees provided by GMH and Harborough under the CLSA and Overage Deed (as discussed above) would continue to cover these additional subsidiaries in relation to the obligations in those documents which still remained to be performed

Whether the complex report tabled for the Cabinet amounts to the financial appraisal Cllr Filson thought essential  remains to be seen. Unfortunately Brent Council has restricted documentation that may have revealed more detail of the financial arrangements. LINK

Matt Kelcher new Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

With Toby Perkins MOP and the Speaker of the House of Commons

 It was clear from the warm tributes paid to Dan Filson from all sides at Brent Council that he will be a hard act to follow.

In terms of the Scrutiny Committee that task goes to Cllr Matt Kelcher (Kensal Green) who was named as Filson's successor tonight. Later in the meeting he used a debate on PCSOs to make an undisguised party political broadcast on behalf of the Kensal Green Labour by-election candidiate Jun Bo Chan.

Whether he measures up to the criteria I set out earlier LINK  I will leave to readers to decide. His career trajectory is similar to many who go from university via well worn paths into politics with Parliament the ultimate goal.

Kelcher is proud of the report he write for Scrutiny on CCTV LINK   The increasingly semi-detached Cllr Janice Long joins Scrutiny to fill the place vacated by Kelcher's elevation.

This is from Cllr Kelcher's LinkedIn profile:

Wanted: Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

Following the sad and premature death of Cllr  Dan Filson, who had made a good start at making Brent Scrutiny Committee more effective, a new Committee chair is needed from amongst the Labour group:

WANTED: INDEPENDENT MINDED, SCRUPULOUS COUNCILLOR GOOD ON DETAIL BUT AWARE OF THE BIGGER PICTURE

Speaking to some of the Labour group it is clear that there are some impediments to the challenging scrutiny of a Council with such a large majority and where the leader is controlling and intolerant of criticism.

The new Chair will thus need to be someone who has not got an eye on future preferment by the Council leadership, including the position of Mayor, and with the strength and tenacity to follow issues through without caving in to pressure.

The new Chair should have a proven public record of contributions to Full Council Meetings which are more than planted questions to Lead Members to showcase the Council's achievements. They should have raised pertinent questions on policy decisions  and detail at Full Council or committee meetings.

Some in the Labour group are of the opinion that the position requires such a high workload that it should not be undertaken by someone who has a full time job in addition to being a councillor. That obviously raises significant issues about equality of opportunity. Those putting forward the argument suggest that a 'part time' Scrutiny Chair will become over-dependent on Council officers who themselves should be subject to scrutiny.

Lastly the new Chair should not be compromised by close friendships and relationships with Cabinet members that might affect their independence. This could extend to representing the same ward as the leadership.

The Scrutiny Committee's role can be found HERE

 Just a reminder of what Barry Gardiner MP said reacting to Labour's election  result last May:

I’m thrilled, of course I’m thrilled but we need to be very careful.

It is a huge responsibility because a majority this big for any party means that we have to look within ourselves for the sort of scrutiny that we need of the policies that we ourselves are proposing.

All of these people got elected because they managed to persuade voters they wanted to represent them in the civic centre on the council. They must remember their job is to represent the people to the bureaucratic (sic) of the council and not to represent the council bureaucrats to the people. 

We are here to be a critical voice to say where things are wrong and to set policy to change Brent for the better.

Who will be that independent critical voice for Brent residents?

Any nominations?

Dan Filson funeral arrangements

Cllr Dan Filson's funeral will be held at West London Crematorium in Kensal Green on Tuesday November 17th at 2.15pm.

18 Bus, Kensal Green Bakerloo and Overground

Family, friends and colleagues will be going on to the William VI pub afterwards. It is on the opposite side of Harrow Road.

Brent Tories first to select candidate for Kensal Green by-election

From Brent Council website

Brent Council has announced that the council by-election is to be held in Kensal Green Ward on Thursday 17 December 2015. This follows the sad death of Cllr Dan Filson last week.

Nominations for candidates must be submitted to the Returning Officer at Brent Civic Centre by 4pm on Friday 20 November.

The person elected on 17 December will be in place for the remainder of the standard four year term of office for a councillor, until May 2018, and will serve alongside the other two councillors elected to that ward in May 2014.

Anyone eligible but not currently registered to vote has until midnight on Tuesday 1 December to register if they wish to vote in the by-election.

Anyone already registered but who wants a postal vote has until 5pm on Wednesday 2 December to submit an application form, which they can get by emailing electoral.services@brent.gov.uk.

Alternatively a form can be downloaded at www.aboutmyvote.co.uk.

You can also call our Electoral Services office on 020 8937 1372.

Brent Conservatives have been quick off the mark selecting Christopher Alley to contest the seat, presumably on the basis that he can handle a sandwich with panache!

Alley has 28 followers on Twitter @ChrisAlley23

Labour Party members interested in standing need to be free next weekend for interviews and have until 6pm on Wednesday 11th November to return their nomination papers. The papers are available from grover.robert2@gmail.com

It will be interesting to see Brent Momentum's impact on the selection.

Brent Green Party will issue an invitation to potential candidates shortly.

Are you eligible to stand? Details HERE

Sudden death of Cllr Dan Filson, Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

Dan Filson's Twitter profile

Labour councillors have been expressing their shock on Twitter this evening following the sudden death of Dan Filson, Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee and a councillor for Kensal Green ward.  Warm tributes have been paid to an independent man who was a real character.  Readers will be familiar with his attempt to sharpen up the role of the Scrutiny Committee when he took over as Chair.

Dan had a combative presence on Twitter so it is fitting that colleagues and friends used the medium to pay tribute:

Cllr Shama Tatler:  There are few people in the world who truly live their principles. @Dan_Filson was a decent, honourable gentleman. RIP comrade@BrentLabour

Cllr Sam Stopp:  .@BrentLabour has lost its most decent and principled councillor with @Dan_Filson 's passing. Totally irreplaceable. We are in shock.

Dawn Butler:  R.I.P Brent's very special Cllr Dan Filson. A lover of fine wine. I will so miss your naughty sense of humour 

Cllr Matthew Kelcher: Terrible news today at the passing of @Dan_Filson - he was a great friend, mentor and comrade and always put #kensalgreen first. Will miss you.

For my part we had many political differences and crossed swords a number of times but shared a commitment to effective scrutiny and transparency. He was always civil when we met personally and good fun to sit next to in the public gallery during council or committee meetings - his dry wit commentary was always entertaining.

He will be missed both politically and personally.

Brent Housing Partnership scorched at Scrutiny

Current works on BHP properties on Pilgrims Way Estate. Wembley (roof, windows, boiler) this morning

Things did not bode well at first last night when the public found that the Scrutiny Committee was not listed on the Civic Centre event screens, but eventually they found that the meeting was indeed on and a few were in the public gallery. Transparency was not improved when yet another delegation by Philip Grant was refused on officer advice. I hope to publish more on that from Philip later.

There were two main items on the agenda: a performance report from Brent Housing Properties (BHP), Brent Council's 'arms length' council housing provider, and the Committee's plans for future work.

Dan Filson opened with a couple of rebukes concerning an inadequately anonymised case study in the BHP report and bureaucratic language that seemed to ignore the actual people who were BHP tenants and leaseholders. Today the report has been removed from the Council website.

Recent government proposals formed the backdrop to many of the concerns and a stumbling block was that social housing providers had yet to receive any detail on how some of the proposals would be implemented.

The budget proposal for a 1% annual social housing rent reduction over a four year period starting in 2016 LINK was a concern because it would amount to a reduction in rent receipts of £10m by the end of the period. For comparison the BHP's repairs expenditure is about £2m per year.  it would also affect the income of housing associations ansd their ability to build new homes adding to the problems caused by the right to buy proposals.

There was a range of potential impacts from benefit changes as well as the proposal that high value properties should be sold off. Lead member for Regeneration, Cllr Margaret McLennan suggested that the latter would affect Council proposals for building larger 4-5 bedroomed houses for the borough's high number of larger families. It was unclear exactly how the high value social homes would be  identified, regionally or by borough. If the latter there were homes in particular areas of the borough that would be affected and could amount to one third of the total.

The higher rents to be imposed for tenants with a joint household income of more than £40,000 was discussed as well as the problem of the removal of benefits from young people.

The Committee were keen to assess the effectiveness of consultation and tenant involvement as well as engagement with young people. There were detailed questions on the makeup of the BHP Board and representation of tenants and leaseholders.

Dan Filson was bitingly critical of the BHP's performance in filling 'voids', getting new tenants into empty properties, remarking that in some boroughs such figures would lead to dismissals. He reminded BHP that every delay resulted in the Council paying for people in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation. The turnaround time for 'major voids' was 79.3 days against a target of 61 and for 'standard voids'  55.7 against 24.

The Committee questioned in some detail the data on complaints:

It was unfortunate that with 'job completion' the main issue there was no discussion of the performance of the BHP's contractors such as Wates for major projects and Veolia for grounds maintenance.

The BHP were given a number of requests for further information by the Committee and Dan Filson asked for a paper clearly setting out the issues for the Committee, the Council and the public.

Filson sets out his credo for new Scrutiny Committee

Cllr Dan Filson set out the credo for the new Scrutiny Committee yesterday evening at its first meeting.  He said that its role was not just to hold the Cabinet to account but also to look beyond that at other institutions that impacted on the lives of Brent residents. The NHS was particularly important both because of the size of its budget and how it affected people, but institutions such as the police should also be considered.

The previous Committee had not looked closely enough at what the Council was doing and the new Committee needed to scrutinise issues well before decisions were made or even before they entered the Forward Plan of the Cabinet.

The Committee would investigate - not interrogate or castigate. Findings would speak for themselves. The Committee would not involve itself in whitewash.

All Brent councillors had been invited to submit items for considerations but finite items, rather than broad issues, would be most likely to be taken up.

Filson expressed some frustration that his efforts to secure contact details to  directly communicate with co-opted members to get their views had not been successful. He promised to attend the upcoming round of Brent Connects meetings to find out what concerned residents.

He anticipated setting up Task Groups which would involve the full array of backbenchers and members of the public with specialist knowledge. Cabinet members would NOT be members of Task Groups.  He said that the quality of input into Task Groups was more important than individual attendance records and that they must report on time.

Scrutiny would not just receive reports but make recommendations for implementation. It would also ensure that such actions were followed up.

Filson concluded by saying that the Committee had inherited forward plans from its predecessor and that it would only be at its August meeting that the agenda would reflect the new approach.

There was certainly more participation by Committee members yesterday with relevant questioning from members who had clearly read the documentation.

Philip Grant's victory at Scrutiny Committee a positive sign for the future?

Brent's new Scrutiny Committee got off to a promising start yesterday evening when it approved an amendment to the minutes of the last Commiteee Meeting that has been requested by Philip Grant. Philip had been denied the opportunity to speak at that meeting, the last of the old Committee, because he would not agree to the condition that he should not mention the findings of the Employment Tribunal which found Brent Council and Cara Davani had racially discrimination against an employee, victimised her and constructively dismissed her.

Despite officer advice from Peter Goss that the amendment would unbalance the Minutes, being a paragraph long, the Committee voted to accept the amendment:

Minutes of Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015 – a proposed amendment to item 2.

a) The minute as it appears in the draft minutes published on the Brent Council website on 8 June 2015:-

2. Deputations (if any) Minutes:  The Chair advised that a request to speak had been received from Mr Grant with respect to the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan. The committee was informed that in line with advice provided by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, it would not be appropriate to discuss an ongoing legal case. Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms. The committee subsequently agreed not to receive the deputation. Councillor Allie expressed the view that the deputation should be heard.  RESOLVED: That permission to address the committee be not granted, in accordance with legal advice provided.

b) Amendment requested by Philip Grant, the Brent resident who had given valid notice to speak as Deputation at that meeting:- 

Delete the sentence:

‘Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms.’ ... and replace it with: 

‘Mr Grant advised that he could not accept the restriction which the Chief Legal Officer wished to impose, and went on to explain why. He said that Cllr. Pavey’s review had been set up to learn the lessons from that Employment Tribunal case, and one of the points he wished to make in his deputation was that an important lesson from it had not been learned. Reference to the case was also necessary to explain what he wished to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on. The case was relevant to the committee’s consideration of item 9 on its agenda, and could not be ignored. The Council lawyer present advised that the case was not fully concluded, so should not be referred to. Mr Grant responded that he would only be referring to findings of fact in the Tribunal’s Judgment of September 2014, which was not under appeal. Those findings were final, so he could not see how any reference to them would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing.’

It is good to see the Committee acting independently as well as Philip Grant's persistence paying off.

Health and Childcare on Agenda for Brent Scrutiny Committee next week

The revamped Scrutiny Committee meets on Tuesday June 16th at the Brent Civic Centre.  As it takes quite a bit of navigation to find the agenda on the Brent Council website here are the main items:

Paediatric Services in Brent PDF 200 KB This joint report produced on behalf of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWHT) provides an overview and summary of Paediatric Services provided to Brent residents.  The report summarises current paediatric provision in Brent and sets out the potential impact on Northwick Park Hospital of the changes to paediatric services at Ealing Hospital taking place on 30 June 2016.

Access to Extended GP Services and Primary Care in Brent - Interim Report PDF 400 KB

This report provides interim feedback on the work of the Scrutiny Task Group focused on Access to Extended GP Services and Primary Care in Brent.  The report outlines the task group scope and methodology and provides an overview of emerging findings and recommendations. 

Public Health - priorities and progress PDF 171 KB

As a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, local authorities have new responsibilities for public health. This report outlines these responsibilities and how the Council is discharging these.

Access to affordable childcare PDF 1 MB This report looks at the challenge of providing access to affordable, quality childcare.

In a report LINK  to the June 22nd Cabinet Scrutiny Chair Dan Filson writes:

In May 2015 the Council selected five new members to serve on the Scrutiny Committee. Scrutiny training was arranged for committee members and this took place on 9 June, with two substitute members taking part. The first scheduled Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for 16 June. The Chair of the Committee can add an oral report on any issues arising. 

The Chair of the Committee has held initial meetings with officers to discuss the process for developing a 2015-16 programme of work and will meet with the full Scrutiny Committee over the coming days to develop further the forward plan. It is unlikely the Committee will map out fully how the forthcoming year will be used as the Committee will want to retain some flexibility as to its programme, not least so it can respond to issues as they may arise and to ensure room for issues that members of the wider public may suggest.

The Chair has invited all members of the Council, not just members of theCommittee, to make proposals for items for inclusion in the work programmeand these will be reviewed by the Committee, as will ideas submitted by the public. Scrutiny Committee will also review the Cabinet Forward Plan andconsider reports from such task groups as are created. The Committee will make greater use of time-limited task groups involving a small group of councillors and others, usually led by a member of Scrutiny Committee.

Chair invites topics for Brent Scrutiny Committee perusal

Will it roar?

 Cllr Dan Filson,  Chair of Brent Council's Scrutiny Committee , marking a different approach to scrutiny has written to all Brent Councillors asking for their ideas on subjects for scrutiny by his committee:

All councillors

The members of Scrutiny Committee and I are considering what subjects should be the subject of scrutiny over the forthcoming year and beyond. Needless to say the number is already large and growing.

Nonetheless, it is open to any member of the council, or the public, to suggest an item for scrutiny. Whether it gets picked will be a matter of human resources. Clearly the Scrutiny Committee, even with 10 meetings a year, won't be able to do justice to a very large number, so we will need to prioritise and use dedicated task groups for some issues. To this end, I want all members of the Council outside the Cabinet to consider whether they would be willing to serve on a Scrutiny Committee task group. If you have specific areas of interest or concern, please say as it may help fit horses to courses.

Issues for scrutiny might fall into:-

- pre-decision, where a decision will be needed or made in the future
- post-decision reviews, whether of a policy or its implementation,
and
- subjects where the Council should get a handle on the problem even if not yet identifying, at this stage, the solution.

Issues for scrutiny may cover the workings of the Council or those of partnership bodies like:-

- the NHS,
- Brent Housing Partnership and local Housing Associations,
- Transport for London
- the local Department of Work and Pension offices
- Voluntary and Community Sector bodies

I am anxious Scrutiny Committee should, whilst looking at issues pertinent to the general wellbeing of Brent residents, get the balance right between looking at issues outside the council and the workings of the council itself, not neglecting the one through excessive focus on the other.

Scrutiny Committee has the power to require lead members and council officers to attend and give evidence, and has some powers in respect of the NHS (there is a good deal of guidance on scrutiny in respect of NHS functions), and can invite, though not require, attendance by others.

The aim of scrutiny should be to investigate, find facts and express judgements. Our mission should be to create transparency on issues where transparency will aid public comprehension of the issues and why decisions have been made the way they were and whether those decisions, and how they were implemented were wrong or mishandled.

For this reason we will aim to give greater publicity to what Scrutiny Committee does and how it operates. To this end, I will be endeavouring to speak at each Brent Connects meeting to explain how we will operate, and conceivably other fora too.

I can assure councillors that I will consider all submissions.

I can also say that scrutiny, despite being in operation since the Local Government Act 2000, is still evolving and developing. We haven't yet got it right. It has been described as "the Lion that failed to roar" but my brief is to get scrutiny working, and I hope you will work with me on that.

Dan Filson's email:  Cllr.Dan.Filson@brent.gov.uk

The next meeting of Scrutiny Committee is at 7pm, June 16th Brent Civic Centre

New line up on Brent Council Scrutiny Committee

Reliable sources tell me that the Brent Labour Group AGM today elected a new Scrutiny Committee with Cllr Dan Filson as chair. He is joined by Cllr Tom Miller, Cllr Sam Stopp, Cllr Matt Kelcher, Cllr Shama Tatler and Cllr Harbi Farah.

The election involved Labour backbenchers and excluded Cabinet members. [added for clarity at request of those concerned- MF].

The single Scrutiny Committee had come under fire for its lack of bite and failure to interrogate lead members and officers sufficiently rigorously.

Dan Filson has a a reputation for independence and is known to actually read council documentation, a rare attribute amongst Brent councillors. He comes over as a cross between Monsieur Hulot and Victor Meldrew but has a sharp edge.

Whether the younger members will exhibit a similar streak of independence and be prepared to challenge the Cabinet remains to be seen.

On Twitter Matt Kelcher said, 'Looking forward to my chance to serve my Borough in a new capacity, I hope to be an effective and constructive voice.'

However, on Facebook, LINK Michael Calderbank wrote 'New Brent Council Scrutiny Committee elected - and full of inexperienced young councillors who will have an eye on leadership patronage'.