How you can hold the authorities to account. Effective FoIs with Martin Rosenbaum Preston Community Library Tuesday 7pm-9.30pm

 

 

It may seem a dry topic but this is a absolutely vital topic for anyone wanting to hold the authrities to account and ensure honesty and transparency. You may well be able to think of a number of issues locally where the effective use of FoIs may well be useful.

This is is the invitation from Preston Community Library

An Evening with Martin Rosenbaum Tuesday 27th June 7pm-9.30pm.

Dear All, We would like to invite you to join us for an evening with journalist Martin Rosenbaum, who will be talking about his new book Freedom of Information: A practical guidebook. Until recently Martin was an executive producer in the BBC's political programmes department, and for sixteen years was BBC News's leading specialist in freedom of information. The book is a comprehensive and up-to-date guide to the UK's freedom of information legislation, and will be an invaluable resource for anyone who wants to be better informed about the activities of government, councils and the public sector.  Refreshments available. Parking and Finding Us:  It is not an event day , but it is better to park along Preston Road, on the left as you go uphill towards Wembley.  A map of where we are is below, with directions and details of buses. With Regards, Philip Bromberg, Preston Community Library

 

 

A dribble of information on Islamia Primary says the Governing Body and Brent Council are considering 'mitigation measures' over move No information on what they are mitigating!

 It has proved really difficult to find out what is going on regarding the proposed move of Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site in Preston ward. The informal consultation finished in November and there has not been a whisper about the results leaving parents and the community in the dark. I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council and as you can see the response still gives no details of the results of the consultation but does say the Islamia  Governing Board and the Council are working togather to 'consider mitigations measures'. What they are mitigating remains a secret.

The Council also fails to answer the question about the opening date of Islamia on the new site. As statutory consultation has not yet started the original date, negotiated with the Yusuf Islam Foundation looks most unlikely as either complete demolition and new build, or partial refurbishment and a new block, were proposed for the site.

This is the formal response to the FoI:

Details of the outcome of the public consultation on the proposed move of Islamia Primary School that was completed in November 2022.

The informal consultation that ran until November 2022 was managed by the Governing Board of Islamia Primary School. The responses and the concerns raised have been considered by the Governing Board and the Governing Board has been working with the local authority to consider mitigation measures. At this point in time, the Governing Board has not made a decision to proceed to statutory consultation.
 
2. Update on when the school will move and operate on its new site
(previously proposed for September 2024).

Operation of Islamia Primary School from the proposed Strathcona site will depend on the timing and outcome of the statutory process to relocate the  school and the completion of required capital investment works, should a decision be made following any statutory consultation to proceed with the relocation.

3. Update on any statutory consultation.
Statutory Consultation will be managed by the Governing Board of Islamia Primary School. 

As well as the above FoI I  submitted an additional FoI to Islamia Primary School itself on May 11th, This is due to be answered by June 9th.

Please provide the following information:

1.The outcome of the consultation on the proposed move of Islamia Primary School to the Strathcona site to open in September 2024 and copies of the breakdown of the consultation result.

2. Copies of all correspondence with the Yusuf Islam Foundation and Brent Council regarding the eviction notice on the school and the subsequent search for alternative premises, survey/s of the Strathcona site and refurbishment/new build proposals.

3. Up to date information on the current pupil numbers in the school by year group.

4. Current pupil mobility rates by year group since September 2022.

Brent Council finds request for information on the Stonebridge Playground betrayal 'extremely burdensome'

As we have heard this week the Government wants to get rid of the Freedom of Information Act, although they haven't quite said it so bluntly.

As far as Brent Council is concerned is seems they have already adopted their own Obfuscation of Information Act.

Glynis Lee, puzzled over the sudden change of policy by Brent Council in Summer 2014 - at a first meeting Brent Council officers informed the Brent Play Association that the Stonebridge Adventure Playground was to be rebuilt, with a new building and perhaps slightly less land but then, at the next meeting, told them they would be closed.  An excited architect named Fred Eastman of South Stuio Architects had shown them his plans for the Playground at the first meeting.

At the same time Brent Council decided to end funding for the Playground.  Their own consultation report later admitted that 80% of consultation respondents wanted to keep the playground, but this was followed by Cllr Ruth Moher stating at a Cabinet meeting that 'you can get anyone to sign a petition'.

Wanting to unravel all this Glynis had put in a Freedom of Information request that the Council refused to answer. She then asked for a review and this was the response.

Note the promised reply by  12th May 2015.  In fact it did not come until July 8th and had been apparently arbitrarily changed from an FoI request to an Environmental Information Regulations request.

This is Fiona Alderman's reply:

--> Dear Ms. Lee

Thank you for your request for a review received on 13 April 2015.

Your information request
Environmental Information Regulations 2004

I refer to your request received on 13 April 2015 for a review of the
council’s decision to refuse your request for information relating, in
broad terms, to the Stonebridge Park redevelopment from 16 September 2013
to date. Please accept my apologises for the delay in conducting the
review.

As part of my review I have considered your original request for
information received on 9 March 2015 which was in the following terms:

“All correspondence, reports, minutes, letters and proposals which relate
to the redevelopment of Stonebridge, the expansion of Stonebridge primary
school, the removal of the Welsh School and the closure of Stonebridge
Adventure Playground. This information would be with specific reference to
all of the above between the Brent’s Asset management department, Children
and Young people department, and department of Regeneration and growth.
Information including reports and plans from South Studio Architects to
also be included, and all communication between council officers, and
councillors which pertains to any or all of the above”.

I have also considered the council’s response to your request dated 8
April 2015.

The response stated that your request is being handled under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 (EIR) and that with one exception your request was
refused because it exceeded the statutory cost limit of £450 (or 18 hours)
as set out in section 12 of FOIA.

The response referred to the diffuse nature of your request, its breadth,
the shear volume of the potential information that might be in scope, the
hundreds of officers across the council and other individuals who may hold
the information you have requested, the difficulties in determining with a
reasonable degree of certainty the information the council actually holds
and the council officers and other individuals who actually hold it (i.e.
the difficulty in locating the information) and the inordinate amount of
time and the excessive and wholly disproportionate amount of resource and
money complying with your request (including retrieving and extracting the
relevant information) would demand.

I also note that you were invited to narrow or refine the scope of your
request.

A link, however, was included in the response for ease of accessing the
report to Cabinet on the council’s re-development proposals for
Stonebridge Park which is a public document and was already published on
the council’s website.

Against that background, I now set out the outcome of my review.

As your request was for information relating to redevelopment proposals,
it constituted ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of EIR.
According to EIR, environmental information includes any information on,
amongst other things, the state of land and plans and activities affecting
or likely to affect the state of land. Your request therefore should have
been considered under EIR and not FOIA and, as a consequence, the refusal
of your request did not comply with the requirements of EIR.

Under EIR, the council can refuse to disclose environmental information if
an exception applies and, in all the circumstances of the case, the public
interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information. There is, however, a presumption in favour of
disclosure. Although, unlike FOIA, EIR do not contain an express
cost-limit, the council can refuse to disclose information to the extent
that the request is “manifestly unreasonable”. Further, according to FOI
case law, the costs of compliance can be taken into account under both
regimes.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is necessary to refuse
your request to protect the resources of the council from being squandered
on disproportionate use of EIR. I am also satisfied that there is no
adequate or proper justification for your request and that it is not aimed
at the disclosure of important information which ought to be made publicly
available.

In this regard, I note in particular that key decisions about the
Stonebridge Park redevelopment proposals have been made by councillors in
open and public meetings and that important information, such as Cabinet
reports and associated documents, are already freely available. Also of
particular note is the extensive and widely advertised consultation that
was undertaken to seek the views of residents and other local stakeholders
about the redevelopment proposals which included creating a website
setting out consultation information with an on-line response portal and
face to face consultation events. The consultation also received
considerable local press coverage.

Finally, as the redevelopment proposals have education, planning and
procurement implications, the attendant statutory controls bearing upon
the council ensure that its decision making is open and transparent and
that there are opportunities for public participation and for the council
to be held to account.

As the availability of the manifestly unreasonable exception is subject to
the public interest test, I have also considered the benefits of
disclosure. The disclosure of yet further information would be in the
interests of openness and transparency. Providing access to information
can assist in holding public authorities to account and encourage greater
public participation in the exercise by public authorities of their public
functions.

On the facts of this case, however, I have no doubt that for the reasons
given in the previous refusal of your request and the reasons I have
given, the public interest in disclosing the information you have
requested is outweighed by the public interest in withholding the
information. In deciding how much value there would be in attempting to
comply with your request I have also had regard to the fact that at least
some (if not most) of the information is likely to fall within available
exceptions under EIR which the council could and would rely upon to
justify a refusal of your request.

Thus, for all the reasons I have summarised in this decision notice, as
your request is extremely burdensome and costly, would require an
unreasonable diversion of finite resources from the provision of valuable
services and is of no public value, it is in my opinion manifestly
unreasonable.

Hence, although your request should have been dealt with under EIR, and
not FOIA, to all intents and purposes, very similar considerations apply
and the outcome is the same.




In conclusion, therefore, I have upheld your complaint in part because it
was dealt with under FOIA, and refused under section 14 of that Act, and
not under EIR. Ultimately, however, I have upheld the decision to refuse
your request because it is manifestly unreasonable and the public interest
favours withholding the disclosure of the information.

If you are not content with the outcome of my review, you have the right
to complain directly to the Information Commissioner. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow,



Glynis would appreciate a translation of the above into English so that she can inform the children of Stonebridge, badly missing their playground as the summer holidays begin, of the Council's position. Can anyone help?

Incidentally the School expansion document going before the Cabinet on Monday notes (regarding the Stonebridge Day Centre currently hosuing Stonebridge Primary classes) and the Preston Library site:

It should be noted that of the above sites, the former Preston Road Library and the former Stonebridge Day Centre are both included in the Capital Disposals Programme for 2016/17 with forecast receipts of £700k and £1.5m respectively estimated for Quarter 4.

 

Rosemarie Clarke’s missing votes: Cara Davani refuses to tell

Guest blog by Amir Tahir

On 22^nd December last I submitted a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council asking for the following:

1. The number of nominations/votes received by individual Brent Staff Achievement Award winners 2014                                                                                                                                                                          2. The number of nominations/votes received for Rosemarie Clarke for Brent Staff Achievement Awards 2014.

By return I received the following acknowledgement from Cara Davani:

‘Thank you for your information request. We (sic) will forward it to the relevant department who will contact you shortly.’

On 21^st January  I received the following from Brent Council HR department.

‘The requested information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the
Freedom of Information Act (FoIA).  The information is personal data as defined by
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). As it is information about individuals, we are
unable to give this to you; release of this information would constitute a breach of
Principle 1 of the DPA. Principle 1 states that personal data shall be processed
(used) fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be used unless at least one of
the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DPA is met; in this case none of those conditions
have (sic) been met.* This response therefore acts as a refusal notice under section 17 of
the FoIA.’  

                                                                    * I would welcome opinions on this. AT

Obviously, my request for the total number of Rosemarie’s votes was not made out of idle curiosity; we all know that the response to the ’Vote for Rosemarie’ idea was overwhelming with Civic Centre staff and members of the public expressing  their solidarity with Rosemarie and their admiration for the way she had conducted herself in the face of what a British court has adjudged was Cara Davani and Brent Council’s racial discrimination, victimisation  and constructive dismissal. The online vote she received was massive. Nor was it my intention in any way to detract from the achievements of the other worthy winners of Brent Staff Achievement  awards.

However, the Council leadership’s mean-spirited response to the avalanche of votes for Rosemarie seems to me a missed opportunity for Butt, Gilbert and Davani finally to concede that those voting for Rosemarie possibly had a point; that Civic Centre staff and the public generally support Rosemarie for principled and valid reasons; and that an employment tribunal judge’s opinion possibly carries a little more authority than that of a small cabal of mutually back-scratching and terminally compromised senior managers  and local politicians.          

Fo! about FoI to Brent Council results in no information held!

It is rather odd that a Brent Labour councillor has to resort to a Freedom of Information request to his own Council about their performance regarding Freedom of Information requests. This is what Cllr Dan Filson did on Thursday. He got a response the next day which is amazing, However he did get fobbed off like the rest of us often are:

I am still waiting for the answer to an FoI request made on November 28th 2014. I hasd heard that the maintenance of large trees had been left out of the Publc Realm contract in which Veolia took over parks maintenance. It had been suggested to me that this was an oversight that would result in additional expenditure.

This is the  response to my intial request:

 1. State who is responsible for safety checks, maintenance, felling and replacement
of trees in Brent's parks, open spaces and cemeteries.

The Contractor is only responsible for minor tree works which can be carried out
whilst working at ground level. The Council is responsible for major tree works.
Grounds maintenance staff from Veolia and the Council’s monitoring officers
(horticulture) would look at trees when they are working in the park or carrying out
monitoring visits. The Coucnil would then engage specialist contractors to carry out
the major works.

My follow-up which is still awaiting a response:

-->

1.     Is the cost of major tree works by a sub-contractor included in
the Public Realm budget out-sourced to Veolia?

2.    If not, what is the expected annual cost of this sub-contracted
work (recognising it might vary considerably due to major weather
events such as storms)?

BREAKING NEWS: Having posted this article at the weekend I got this answer about 9.30am this morning:

 1: No
2: The Council’s street trees maintenance contractor is Gristwood & Toms. The budget for street tree maintenance works was £500,000 in 2014/15, but this is expected to fall to £450,000 in 2015/16.


 

Information not so free at Brent Council when it comes to respecting the Constitution

Philip Grant has written to Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council, regarding her refusal of a resident's  Freedom of Information request  about the meeting Grant had with Muhammed Butt on 'Respecting Brent's Constitution'.

Philip Grant wrote:

Dear Ms Ledden,

I have just come across the attached document, a letter from you on behalf of Brent Council on 18 September 2014 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by a Mr Benazi, on the "What do they know" website.



The request concerns a copy of the notes of a meeting, which I prepared after I had met with Cllr. Muhammed Butt at the Civic Centre on 26 June 2014, notes which I wished to put in the public domain, but which I did not feel able to do for reasons explained in a "guest blog" which was posted on the "Wembley Matters" site in July 2014 LINK

I am writing to point out that the explanation you gave for not providing a copy of the notes to Mr Benazi was incorrect, for the following reasons:

The "information" (the notes) was held by Brent Council, in that Thomas Cattermole (Head of Executive and Member Services), who had been present at and taken part in the meeting, held a copy of them.

My meeting was not with Councillor Butt 'as a Councillor', but with him as Leader of Brent Council, to discuss matters involving the Council, its workings and the actions of Council Officers, and not any personal matter as a "constituent" (which I would have raised with one of my ward Councillors for Fryent Ward, if that had been the case).

The meeting took place at Councillor Butt's invitation, and not at my request.It was to discuss matters which I had raised in a letter to him (jointly with Cllrs Kansagra and Lorber) following a "Soapbox" I gave at a Brent Connects meeting in February 2014 on "Respecting Brent's Constitution", and which he had not yet dealt with. [You may remember that I sent you a copy of the letter, and of the text of my "Soapbox" on 13 February 2014, with an email headed 'Working together on Respecting Brent's Constitution', after you had confused that letter with another matter (a complaint I had made to Christine Gilbert about the actions of three senior Council Officers) in dealing with a request made to you by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.]

For these reasons, I can see no justification for dismissing Mr Benazi's request, as the information would have been within that which should be supplied by Brent Council under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that the Council will now, belatedly, comply with that FoI request. Best wishes,

REVEALED: All Souls/Gillick Kensal Rise Library option agreement

Guest blog by Meg Howarth
 
All Souls College (ASC) has released the Option Agreement (OA) to buy Kensal Rise Library which it signed with Andrew Gillick on 26 November 2012. It was ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner following a successful appeal against its refusal to disclose the document under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request - details of that decision have been published on the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) website.

 Failure to comply with the commissioner's decision could have resulted in ASC being reported to the High Court. Though the college was permitted to redact the names, dates and sale-price from disclosure, ironically it's only the price Andrew Gillick paid for Kensal Rise Library that's still unknown. As of today, the Land Registry records haven't been updated since the sale to Mr Gillick was completed on/after 31 January this year but currently reveal:

'Option Agreement dated 26 November 2012 made between 

(1) Andrew Gillick and (2) The Warden and College of the Souls of All 

Faithful People Deceased in the University of Oxford expiring on 31 

January 2013' 

and that the value of the property 

 'at 5 July 2012 was stated to be under £100,000'. 

Interestingly, the OA shows that Mr Gillick paid a deposit of £105,000 which was to be deducted from the sale-price of the building.

Dated                2012

THE WARDEN AND COLLEGE OF THE SOULS OF ALL FAITHFUL PEOPLE DECEASED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD (1)

--------------------(2)

__________________________________

                OPTION AGREEMENT

         to purchase Kensal Rise Library

___________________________________

All Souls College ordered to disclose Kensal Rise 'binding agreement'

Guest blog by Meg Howarth

Protest outside All Souls College, Oxford

All Souls College, Oxford, has been ordered by the Information Commissioner to provide a copy of its Option Agreement - also known as the ‘binding agreement’ - for the sale of historic Kensal Rise Library (KRL) to developer Andrew Gillick. Only the date of completion, price and names/personal details of those involved in the transaction can be withheld.

The Commissioner made his decision on 4 March, in response to a Freedom of Information request by a supporter of the campaign to save the Mark Twain library from conversion to yet more unaffordable housing. The college authorities have 35 days in which to comply with the request. Failure to do so could result in the Commissioner writing to the High Court where lack of compliance may be treated as contempt of court. 

The grounds for the decision are that ‘The Commissioner considers that there is a legitimate public interest in disclosure of information surrounding the transaction, to which there is significant opposition, to promote openness, accountability and increase public understanding’.

Wealthy All Souls was until recently the owner of the site following the closure of the historic library by Brent Council in 2012. Its sale to Andrew Gillick was conditional on vacant possession. This was achieved when the college sent in its heavies to remove the pop-up library - built partly on the site, part on the public highway - at 6am on 31 February this year. Completion of sale occurred on or soon after that date. 

All Souls’ cowardly dawn-raid echoed Brent’s own barbarism of 29 May 2012 when council contractors entered the library building at 3am, stripping it of its books and Mark Twain commemorative plaque. The aim in both instances was the same - to pre-empt local opposition to the respective actions. The anti-democratic leading the greedy... 

Indeed, the college’s principal argument against disclosure of the Option Agreement was that public knowledge of the date(s) for vacant possession and completion-of-sale - together with the price - ‘would result in increased protest and activism to try to prevent completions’. It argued that should the sale of the property not be completed - for whatever reason - disclosure ‘would also make it more difficult for the college to find an alternative purchaser for the property’. It justified its line of reasoning as follows:

‘the college relies on its income from its property assets to conduct its research activities...prejudicing the college’s ability to generate such income from the sale of property would make it less able to conduct research of a similar standard and scale [something] which would not be in the public interest’. 

Proof, if any is needed, that irony is not yet dead, is the title of such a piece of research by one of All Souls’ senior fellows. It was listed on the college’s website in July 2012 as nearing completion and was published by the university later that year - Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment! 

You couldn’t make it up. Not only did All Souls pay nothing towards the building of the library - that was financed from a mixture of public taxation and a handsome donation by Andrew Carnegie. But the land on which KRL was built was more likely an act of tax-avoidance, aimed to bypass the land tax in operation at the time, rather than the philanthropic act its donation to the-then borough of Willesden, now Brent, is reputed to have been. Folklore over realpolitik...?

The real philanthropy would, of course, have been for the college elders to have returned KRL to the borough of Brent. Too late for that now. Andrew Gillick is the new owner. His original change-of-use scheme was unanimously rejected by Brent’s planning committee last September. It is currently enmeshed in a Kensington and Chelsea police-led inquiry into fraudulent online support - the headquarters of Mr Gillick’s property firms Platinum Revolver and Kensal Properties is sited in the royal borough (see Wembley Matters, 27 February 2014). The developer is intending to submit a revised change-of-use planning application for the site. 

Footnote: While disclosure of the Option Agreement for the sale of Kensal Rise Library is awaited, it’s worth remembering that the only third party to date to have seen the document is Brent’s legal counsel. He was forbidden to make a copy. Whether he shared the significant information it contained with council officers and/or elected members is unknown but a waiting-game certainly seems to have been played regarding the securing of vacant possession by 31 January.

Democracy, eh - and elections are coming... 

Why services are better in public hands - the need for a Public Service Users Bill

The We Own It campaign LINK  will launch their report on the need for a Public Service Users Bill on Monday. The Bill would promote and protect high quality and accountable public services.

They list the benefits of public ownership:

1. You use it

Meeting your needs – whether that's at the doctors' surgery or at the post office – should mean giving you time, attention and care. Public ownership makes it easier for staff to take the time that’s needed rather than squeezing services to boost profits. This means that when public services are in public hands, they tend to be better run. Local authorities across the UK are bringing services in-house to improve their quality and value for money.

2. You pay for it

Public services are something we all pay for, and we all use. Public ownership means your money is better spent, both locally and nationally. Money can be reinvested into services to improve them, instead of subsidising the profits of private companies. Savings are also made because services are integrated and there is no need to manage contracts. Publicly run East Coast rail has saved the taxpayer £600 million and if water was in public hands, household water bills would be around £80 a year cheaper.

3. You have a say in it 

When public services are run by local or national government, it's easier for you to know who to turn to when you want to complain, and to have your say in how you want services to be improved. The public sector must make data available to you and respond to Freedom Of Information requests (unlike the private sector). Public ownership also means it's possible for the whole of society to decide on a goal (for example, a long term energy policy) and achieve it efficiently. Most people want public services to be provided publicly and almost all of us want a say in how they are run.

4. You share it 

Public services are something we all share. When services are owned by all of us, it's easier for staff to work with service users and community groups to improve them. This can and should involve imaginative ways to keep making them better. In the 21st century, public services should be about people, not profit. Public ownership can sometimes involve the voluntary sector, social enterprises and cooperatives where that's the right solution, and where there are safeguards in place to protect public assets.

5. Examples all over the world show that it works better

In the UK, despite the current drive to privatise, many local authorities are bringing services in-house to boost satisfaction and save money. Across Europe, public ownership is making a comeback. For example, the water in Paris is now owned and controlled by the city, and in Germany energy is being generated locally by publicly owned utilities. In the US, a fifth of all previously outsourced services have been brought back in-house.

The Bill would ensure:

Public ownership would be the default for public services

1. Public ownership would be prioritised as the default option that is looked at first, before contracting out (supported by 60% of the public). Local and national government would always explore best practice public ownership, before turning to private companies.

2. There would always be a realistic, thorough in-house bid from the public sector whenever a public service – local or national - is put out to tender (supported by 80% of the public).

3. The public would be consulted before any service is privatised or outsourced (supported by 79% of the public).

4. Organisations with a social purpose – the public sector and genuine cooperatives, mutuals, charities and social enterprises – would be prioritised in the tendering process (supported by 57% of the public).

Private companies running public services would be held to account

1. The public would have a ‘right to recall’ private companies who are doing a bad job (supported by 88% of the public).

2. Private companies running public services would be transparent about their performance and financial data - as in the public sector (supported by 88% of the public).

3. Private companies running public services would be subject to Freedom Of Information legislation - as in the public sector (48% of the public mistakenly believe this is already the case).

4. The public would be properly consulted about the services they receive through public service contracts.

Jewish support for Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign - the letter not published by local press

Neither the Kilburn Times nor the Wembley and Willesden Observer published a letter sent a few weeks ago on the issue of Veolia and the Brent Public Realm contract. In the light of the barring of discussion of a Lib Dem motion on the subject at the last Brent Council meeting and subsequent coverage in the Times of Israel LINK I publish the the letter below.

Despite a Freedom of Information request Brent Council have still not answered two of the three questions posed  LINK  They have confirmed that the three short-listed companies for the £250m 16 year contract are Veolia, Enterprise and Serco.

LETTER TO EDITOR Human rights and the public realm contract

We are writing to ask your readers to support our campaign to persuade Brent Council to act to defend justice and human rights. The Council is about to award a contract worth more than £250m over 16 years for the collection and recycling of waste, street cleaning and parks maintenance. This is  money paid in general taxation and council tax by Brent citizens that could go to a firm accused of grave misconduct in its abuse of justice and human rights in the occupied territories of Palestine.

 

Veolia, one of the  bidders  for the contract supports Israeli settlements  on Palestinian  land, which are illegal under international law, by:

 

1. Sharing in the building and running of the Jerusalem Light Railway between West Jerusalem and the illegal settlement in Pisgat Zeev.
2. Running bus routes that link illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank to Israel and that discriminates against Palestinians.
3. Owning and operating the Tovlan landfill site that dumps rubbish from Israel and its illegal settlements on to Palestinian land.

 

We have presented legal evidence on these issues to Brent Council in a campaign to persuade them to exclude Veolia from the current procurement on the grounds of its ‘grave misconduct’.

 

This included a statement from Richard Falk of the UN which said: “Veolia is an inappropriate partner for any public institution, especially as a provider of public services.”

 

However, Brent Council has gone ahead and short-listed Veolia, along with Serco and Enterprise for the contract. Council officers have refused to answer our questions on the procurement process the most important of which are:

 

1. Why did you decide not to exercise your discretionary power to exclude Veolia?

2. What legal or other advice led you to this decision?

3. Have the allegations of grave misconduct been put to Veolia and if so what was the response?

 

We think these are reasonable questions that deserve an answer. In a number of recent procurement cases Veolia has withdrawn from the bidding process when the third question has been put.

 

Our campaign is cross-party and community-based and involves people of many faiths and none. Readers can get involved by signing our petitions on line or on paper which are available at http://www.brentpsc.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Brent Council, representing a borough with a diverse population from many ethnic and religious backgrounds, should stand up for human rights and social justice and exclude Veolia from the procurement process.

 

Beryl  Maizels

Leon Rosselson

Sheila Robin

Jews for Justice for Palestinians on behalf of the Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign.

Brent Council stonewalls on all fronts

Evidence is mounting that Brent Council does not want to hear from its citizens, but sure that they know best, want to carry out decision making without the irritant of representations from the public.

At the last Brent Executive, leader of the Council Ann John, in an emotional outburst asked why people did not come and make representations about the cuts that would make the 'poor people of Brent a lot worse off'. Brent Fightback requested permission to address the Council meeting to be held on Monday February 27th on just that topic: the cuts in Brent's budget that will impact on Brent's most vulnerable groups.

The request was turned by Anne Reid, Principal Democratic Services Officer:

I have advised the Mayor, the Leader of the Council, the Chief Executive and the Borough Solicitor of your request and the view is that there have been opportunities prior to this evening at committee for you to address members. Full Council is for the Leader to clearly present the budget proposals. Accordingly, your request has not been accepted.

I requested permission to present to Council the petition calling for Willesden Bookshop to be allocated space in the proposed Willesden Cultural Centre. This was turned down by Peter Goss of Democratic Services on the grounds that only petitions with more than 5,000 signatures could be presented at Council.  I followed this up by asking then which Committee I could present it to:

Once your petition closes, you will be informed of what will happen to it. As you know the Executive has already taken decisions on this matter and so there are no current plans for the Executive to consider the matter further. It is now for the Planning Committee to consider the planning application and in the light of this I will determine how to progress your petition, taking account of the Council's petition scheme.

The petition closed on February 21st but I have heard nothing more from Democratic Services. It is interesting that the statement says that there are no current plans for the Executive to discuss the matter further. There is currently a consultation managed by Galliford Try the developers of the 90-95 unit  housing development with Cultural Centre attached, which includes 1:1 sessions with residents on February 28th and 29th and an exhibition of March 9th and 10th. If the Executive is not going to consider the matter further it is unclear what the point is of this this consultation.

The last issue concerns my Freedom of Information requesting documentation regarding the Council's deliberations regarding  privatisation of  Brent Parks Service.  Brent Council failed to meet statutory deadlines. The request was made on December 30th 2011 and the reply received only on February 21st.
The request has been turned down by Fiona Ledden, Director of Legal and Procurement Department:

In respect of the documentation that you have requested in respect of the (FOI request) this is highly sensitive and speculative information that at any point in time is the subject of initial high level consideration by Senior Officers only. It is highly possible that any such   proposals as may exist may not go for further consideration.

Ledden goes on to quote Section 36 (2) (b) (ii) of the Freedom of Information Act which she claims provides exemption 'where disclosures would or would be likely to, inhibit free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation'. She goes on to claim  Section 36 (2) (c) applies additionally or alternatively, where disclosure 'would be likely otherwise to 'prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs'.

She concludes:

There are strong public interests in accountability and transparency but there are also strong public interests in enabling officers and elected members to play their proper role in decision making and in developing ideas, which it is then appropriate to share on  wider basis.'

Ledden suggests that this is all a matter of timing and these are the grounds of increasing public  frustration in various aspects of council proposals:  the Council not publishing the criteria for bids for groups to take over libraries faced with closures, lack of financial information on the Civic Centre (commercially sensitive), 'secret' appendices on the Willesden Cultural Centre proposals and local  councillors who had seen the Cultural Centre plans being barred from discussing them with the public.

The 'timing' goes awry because the public feel that they are informed, often poorly, at a late stage and are confronted with a 'done deal'. This gives the impression of a lack of respect for residents' views and a lack of transparency and accountability. It is why groups such as those campaigning on libraries, social care and regeneration are aghast when they face the reality of council decision making.

Answer well overdue on Parks Privatisation FOI request

Readers will recall that in December last year I raised concerns about the possible privatisation of the Brent Parks Service.  I made a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council asking for information on the issue on December 30th.

Brent Council should have responded by January 31st in order to meet the statutory requirements attached to the FOI Act but have still not done so. The latest communication from the Council dated February 13th  states LINK

 We are sorry for the delay in answering your request.

Your request has been referred to the Council's Director of Legal Services who is the Council's qualified officer for the purpose of section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act.   Consideration is being given by her as to whether responding to any part of the request is likely to be exempt under those provisions. 

A copy of your complaint has been forwarded to her and she has been asked to deal with your complaint about delay at the same time as she responds to your original request.

I will keep you posted on any further response.