Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt accused of having Scrutiny chairs 'in his pocket'

The Annual Meeting of Brent Council which had proceeded with its ceremonies as expected burst into life this week when it considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Council Constitution based on their interpretation of the 2017 recommendations of the  House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 'Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees '(Extract above) Link to full report.

 

Cllr Georgiou moving the amendment said that that there needed be a real and visible indpendent role for scrutiny and proposed that Scrutiny Committe recommendations should be discussed at Full Council, rather just Cabinet. Further, the Liberal Democrats felt that just having two scrutiny committees, unlike some other councils, meant that their agenda were too packed for effective scrutiny. They proposed a further 3 scrutiny committes to spread the load and make scrutiny more effective. Given the political makeup of the council 3 should be chaired by Labour councillors and the other 2 by a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative  councillor. The leader of the Conservative group backed the call.

 

 

 

Responding, Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt said that this was a Labour Council chosen by the people of Brent. Gesturing to his Labour colleagues he said that on his side of the chamber 'we have the people's choice', and went on:

I have two great Scrutiny Chairs who are doing a superb job...we have no need to make any changes.

The Liberal Democrats had not taken account of the expense and officer time need for 3 more committees when there were financial constraints. The Labour Group would oppose the amendment.

 

 

 

Exercising the Lib Dem's right of reply Cllr Paul Lorber said:

Thank you for the advert for democracy in the borough.

He then jumped on the possessive ' I ' that Butt had used and asked, 'Are they [scrutiny chairs] excellent because they are independent or because they are in your pocket? Which is it Cllr Butt?'

Addressing all the councillors he said that non-executive councillors all had a responsibility to ensure there was effective scrutiny:

If the leader of this council has 'my' chairs of scrutiny in his pocket there can be no confidence that the scrutiny process is independent and fair because of the words he used. Because of the words of the leader we now know that scrutiny is a rubber stamping of everything, a 'yes' to everything and no effective scrutiny.

 

Cllr Miller raised a point of order asking that the Mayor (chairing her first council meeting)  should make Cllr Lorber apologise for his 'unparliamentary' language but this was ruled out on a technicality by the council's legal advisor.

 

Cllr Kelcher, chair of the planning committee, raising another point of order/information said that the chairs of scrutiny were elected  within the Labour Group on a vote that excluded members of the executive. Therefore a misleading picture had been painted about their independence.

 

The motion was put to the meeting and lost with as far as I could see only Lib Dem and Conservative councillors voting for it.

 

A  futher Lib Dem amendment on  the 6 Brent Connects area suggested that Wembley being much larger that the two others should be split into 2.  In addition, reflecting the  political representation in the areas that one of the Wembley areas should be chaired by a Lib Dem councillor and the kingsbury and Kenton by a Conservative councillor.

That amendment was also lost so the 5 Brent Connect areas remain chaired by Labour councillors.

 

 

 Extracts from the House of Commons Report (LINK)

We have found that the most significant factor in determining whether or not scrutiny committees are effective is the organisational culture of a particular council. Having a positive culture where it is universally recognised that scrutiny can play a productive part in the decision-making process is vital and such an approach is common in all of the examples of effective scrutiny that we identified. Senior councillors from both the administration and the opposition, and senior council officers, have a responsibility to set the tone and create an environment that welcomes constructive challenge and democratic accountability. When this does not happen and individuals seek to marginalise scrutiny, there is a risk of damaging the council’s reputation, and missing opportunities to use scrutiny to improve service outcomes. In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures.

Our inquiry has identified a number of ways that establishing a positive culture can be made easier. For example, in many authorities, there is no parity of esteem between the executive and scrutiny functions, with a common perception among both members and officers being that the former is more important than the latter. We argue that this relationship should be more balanced and that in order to do so, scrutiny should have a greater independence from the executive. One way that this can be achieved is to change the lines of accountability, with scrutiny committees reporting to Full Council meetings, rather than the executive. We also consider how scrutiny committee chairs might have greater independence in order to dispel any suggestion that they are influenced by partisan motivations. Whilst we believe that there are many effective and impartial scrutiny chairs working across the country, we are concerned that how chairs are appointed can have the potential to contribute to lessening the independence and legitimacy of the scrutiny process.

 

The Centre for Public Scrutiny states that:

Legally, the Chairing and membership of overview and scrutiny committees is a matter for a council’s Annual General Meeting in May. Practically, Chairing in particular is entirely at the discretion of the majority party.

Majority parties can, if they wish, reserve all committee chairships (and vicechairships) to themselves ... the practice of reserving all positions of responsibility to the majority party is something which usually happens by default, and can harm perceptions of scrutiny’s credibility and impartiality.

 

Chairs from a majority party that are effectively appointed by their executive are just as capable at delivering impartial and effective scrutiny as an opposition councillor, but we have concerns that sometimes chairs can be chosen so as to cause as little disruption as possible for their Leaders. It is vital that the role of scrutiny chair is respected and viewed by all as being a key part of the decision-making process, rather than as a form of political patronage.

 

Newcastle City Council where all scrutiny chairs are opposition party members, states that:

This has taken place under administrations of different parties and we believe that it adds to the clout, effectiveness and independence of the scrutiny process; it gives opposition parties a formally-recognised role in the decision-making process of the authority as a whole, more effective access to officers, and arguably better uses their skills and expertise for the
benefit of the council.

 

Brent commits to work with Brent Friends of the Earth/Divest Brent towards divesting its Pension Fund from fossil fuels

 

 

From Divest Brent/Brent Friends of the Earth

For over 3 years campaign group Divest Brent have been working to persuade the Council to divest its Pension Fund from fossil fuels. On April 6 Councillor Matt Kelcher presented the 1,400-signature petition (including 1,200 Brent residents) to the Cabinet on behalf of Divest Brent.  

 

Coming as it did immediately before the Cabinet discussed its 10-year climate strategy Councillor Kelcher’s hard-hitting presentation carried added weight. Following campaigning by Divest Brent the draft strategy, which was agreed at the meeting, included a section on the Pension Fund’s investments.

 

Responding to the presentation, Council Leader Muhammad Butt, Deputy Leader Margaret McLennan and Environment lead, Krupa Sheth all spoke positively and in particular Councillor McLennan looked forward to working with Divest Brent and Brent Friends of the Earth to take the agenda forward.

 

In 2019 the Council declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency and specifically agreed to redirect investments to renewable, sustainable and low carbon funds. Indeed some investments have been made in this area but the majority of the Pension Fund is still invested in funds which include fossil fuels.

 

Simon Erskine, Co-ordinator of Divest Brent, said “We welcome any moves by the Pension Fund to invest sustainably and to help with the transition to renewable energy – but the fact is that whatever green investments the Fund may have, while it continues to invest in fossil fuels it is part of the problem. We therefore look forward to working with the Council to develop a road-map for divestment in the short term.”

 

The presentation of the petition comes hot on the heels of a report entitled “Divesting to protect our pensions and the planet” which gave a comprehensive breakdown of the extent that UK Councils were invested in fossil fuels. 3% of Brent’s Pension Fund is thought to be invested in fossil fuels - £26 million. Compared to the £40 million invested in 2017 this looks like an improvement – until it is realised that much of the reduction is due to a fall in value of fossil fuel investments.

 

The Council has admitted that, while much of the Stock Market has suffered from Covid 19, they have lost £8 million by failing to divest from fossil fuels before the pandemic. They are not alone in this – with UK Councils having lost £2 billion altogether over the last 4 years – but £8 million is still a serious loss compared to the Pension Fund total of £800 million.

 

With the outlook for fossil fuels never worse as the electric vehicle revolution starts to kick in and governments look to move away from gas as a means of heating our homes, Pension Fund committee members could find themselves in breach of their duties to protect the value of the Fund if they do not start to move seriously towards divestment. Said Mr Erskine, “We look forward to Brent joining Lambeth, Southwark and Islington Councils (to name just a few) in committing to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels.”

 

 

Divestment from fossil fuels - Cllr Matt Kelcher: 'We should do it NOW, when we can make the biggest impact'

 

 

The presentation and discussion of the Divest petition

Cllr Matt Kelcher today presented a petition of nearly 1,400 Brent residents calling for Brent Council to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels. In the video above you can see him outline why investing in fossil fuels is bad policy, bad economics and bad politics. He said local people feel strongly about the issue in the light of the climate emergency and Brent Council should follow the lead of 9 Labour boroughs with divestment policies,. 'Not to divest makes us part of the problem and not part of the solution...We should do it NOW, when we can make the biggest impact.' 

In her response Cllr McLennan (Deputy Leader and lead for resources) offered to  work with Divest Brent and Friends of the Earth on the issue.

Councillors move to improve Brent Council's scrutiny process

Scrutiny is more than just a band!

Following my article about failures in Brent Council scrutiny processes LINK local resident and Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant took up the issue with councillors. Concerns centred around the Council not meeting the standards outlined in the Centre for Public Scrutiny's  Good Scrutiny Guide.  Indeed the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee's Recommendation Tracker showed only ONE response from the Cabinet to the Committee's 18 reports for 2019-20 and that was merely to 'note' the committee's recommendations on the vital issue of air quality, rather than provide any responses and action commitments.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee does not appear to have a Recommendation Tracker so it is difficult to assess the impact of its recommendations which are often made after very detailed questioning of officers and lead members. At the last meeting which I attended the committee members did not raise any issuers under 'Matters Arising' from the Minutes which would be one way of checking on any actions arising from recommendations.

These are the responses Philip  Grant has received which indicate that the matter is being considered by at least two councillors.

Philip writes:

Cllr. Miller  Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement, responded to my email  but he did not say whether he was writing on behalf of the Council Leader and fellow Cabinet members, or just in a personal capacity.

Among the points in his email, I welcome his statement that:

'I wish to agree with the point that Scrutiny reports should not simply be ‘noted’. Often when there are 20+ recommendations etc it can be difficult to go into great detail in responding, but generally where an action or decision is requested I feel that the cabinet should record its response, if not its basic reasoning.'

He went on to say:

'... if cabinet disagrees with a scrutiny recommendation, then we should make an effort to say why. My officers will shortly report back to the Chair of the knife crime scrutiny task group, Cllr Kabir, on progress against her report recommendations, for this reason. I would like to see this embedded in our practice more officially.'

I have replied to Cllr. Miller, saying:

'I welcome your agreement that the Cabinet should do more than just "note" recommendations from Scrutiny Committees. The findings of those committees, who have the time to consider particular issues far more closely than the Cabinet can do, should be respected and implemented by the Leader and Cabinet, unless there are very good reasons why that should not be the case. Scrutiny is one of the important "checks and balances" which a well run Council democracy needs.'

Hopefully, the points raised by Councillors Nerva and Mashari at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 29 January, and Martin's highlighting of them , will see better treatment by Brent's Cabinet of recommendations by the Scrutiny Committees in future.

I have received the following email from Cllr. Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that Martin's efforts in highlighting this matter in his blog, and mine in sharing my concerns with councillors, may not have been a waste of time:

'Thanks for your continued interest in this matter:

I have had several meetings on the subject with the most senior officers in the last couple of weeks. I can assure you that it is something I take very seriously.

A new system will be in place for the next couple of meetings of my committee and I am sure you will see a significant improvement.'

Topics for tonight's Brent Scrutiny Committee

Chair’s Report Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny CommitteeJanuary 2020  
6pm Brent Civic Centre AGENDA

Good evening and welcome to the first meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny of this new year, and new decade!As has become a January tradition, we will be using this meeting to analyse the cabinet’s budget proposals for the coming financial year. Between October and January, I chaired the cross-committee budget scrutiny panel which took a detailed look at issues in the budget, and budget setting process. Our final report is included in the papers for tonight’s meeting and I hope it will give members of the committee some ideas and topics as they seek to question our important witnesses on these eissues. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who was involved in producing the final report, particularly those councillors and officers who stayed late at the civic centre during some dark winter nights to answer questions and provide important perspectives for our work.Tonight is certainly not the last opportunity for backbench councillors to analyse the budget or have their say. The proposals will go to cabinet where councillors and the public can attend to have their say, and of course for a final vote at full council.

However, this meeting should be seen as an important part of the process, and we will seek to get some clear commitments from the council leadership around the recommendations in the budget scrutiny panel’s report.Whilst the budget discussion will certainly get significant attention, we also have some other very important business on the agenda.Firstly, we will be launching our next task group which will look into the issue of violence and abuse against women across Brent. I hope the task group can provide some new insight into how the council can coordinate with its key partners to tackle this disturbing problem. 

Next, we will be looking at the council’s property and capital strategy. In broad terms,Brent is very revenue poor as a council, but our capital position is more favourable.Therefore, it is vitally important that we use these limited levers in a strategic manner which ensures we can meet our goals and reduce capital spending in future years.It is therefore unsurprising that the committee has always taken an interest in these issues, and I look forward to a further discussion tonight. 

Finally, as councillors we often get contacted by Brent residents who have concerns about the areas in which the council chooses to invest its pension fund. We have a clear responsibility to ensure this is done in an ethical manner, but also that we ensure there is enough money in the pot to ensure the dedicated public servants who work for us are able to live comfortably in retirement. I anticipate a lively debate on exactly how to strike this balance.  

Best wishes, Cllr Matt Kelcher, Chair, Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee

Brent Council rushes to spend £92m buying South Kilburn site before other buyers purchase it

Brent Council has informed Cllr Matt Kelcher, Chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee LINK, that they are making an urgent decision to buy the Gloucester and Durham bocks on South Kilburn Estate for £92m - the decision to be made by July 15th.

Telford Homes took on the lease in January 2018.  The notice to Kelcher says the blocks will be sold to other buyers if 'we do not treat with the vendor before the end of July.'

It is unclear which site is earmarked for the decant of William Dunbar and William Saville House residents in 2021.  It appears the Council fully expects to win the  ballot of residents on the demolition of their homes.

SAFER KIDS: Brent parents launch petition to local politicans calling for immediate action on 'daily threats' their children face

Local people have launched a petition demanding that Brent's three MPs  and local councillors  act quickly to ensure that

We demand immediate solutions to the daily threat our children face through:

·      More police/security details patrolling the Kensal Green, Kensal Rise, Queens Park and Harlesden area, especially at key points in the day

·      More CCTV in key locations

·      The creation of a positive action network consisting of schools, residents and local businesses that raises awareness and encourages positive, social behaviour within the community.

We also demand long-term solutions such as investment in local youth centres and helping the youth committing these crimes to become part of the community, rather than fighting against it.

Why is this important?

We the undersigned residents of Brent demand our streets be made safe for our children. We are writing to you to demand you immediately address the radical increase in muggings and assaults on children in our local area. Lawlessness is rampant and impunity is now rife in our neighbourhood. Our streets feel like the Wild West - anything goes, and no one can do a thing about it.

Muggings and assaults on children are now occurring daily, often between 2pm and 7pm on the peripheries of schools, in parks and around the Chamberlayne Rd area. These crimes are committed by youth, at times in balaclavas, often using knives, sometimes using steel bars as a threat, other times using direct violent assault - and all this in broad daylight.

In the cases where adults have tried to intervene, they too have been violently assaulted. One parent was recently punched in the head in Roundwood Park numerous times in front of his son, and another parent had a plank of wood smashed into his face, loosing several teeth in the Queens Park area - also in front of his children.

Sadly, many cases go unreported as the victims are fearful if they tell, they could be putting themselves in more danger. Moreover, parents at times fear nothing will be done as the police rarely turn up, or if they do it’s 30 minutes late, when the perpetrators are long gone.

At an age when our children should be cherishing a newfound independence, they now have to fear for their safety. They must ask themselves: Will I be attacked on the way home from school today? Is it safe to take my phone? Do I have to walk in a big group to be safe? What should I do if I get assaulted? Will they knife me?

No child should have to ask him or herself these questions. We want our children to:

- be able to walk to school and home from it
- go the the park/skatepark
- walk to a friend’s house
- go to the corner shop
- catch a bus/ the tube etc...

without having to worry that they will be assaulted or mugged.

The effect of daily fear in these young minds, if not addressed, is likely to lead to a dramatic increase in anxiety, depression and isolation in our local community.

May we remind you, in 1991 the UK signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the nine core UN human rights treaties. The CRC protects the rights of children in all areas of their life, including their rights to “freedom from violence, abuse and neglect”.

It is tragic that almost three decades later, in this supposedly civilised society, our children are not protected from violence or abuse in their very own neighbourhood.

It is tragic, that due to austerity, our society is now one in which crime is rampant, impunity rife and our children - our future - are the ones having to suffer the devastating consequences.

It is tragic that they must now live in fear in their own community.

We demand you make our streets safe for our children. We demand action and we demand it now.

Yours sincerely,
AC Collet on behalf of Safer Kids

LINK TO PETITION

UPDATE: Responding to a request for a comment by Wembley Matters, Cllr Tom Miller, lead member for community safety said:

We are broadly sympathetic to the aims of the petition and I've offered to meet with the organisers and anybody they would like to join with them.

Duff litter enforcement proposal slammed by Kilburn councillor

The proposal to out-source litter enforcement came in for a drubbing from Kilburn Councillor John Duffy at last night's Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Sam Stopp stated at the beginning of the meeting that the Task Group he led report on illegal rubbish dumping could have been interpreted as advocating some sort of out-sourcing  but this was not the case. He cited Islington as a borough where in-house services had proved to be more efficient.

Stopp went on to express 'deep dissatisfaction' that the Task Group had not been consulted on the implementation of any of the recommendations made in their report. He opposed out-sourcing because the Council needed to earn revenue and provide employment  opportunities and in-house provision could deliver both.  He said that there should be a clear commitment to continuing liaison with task group members when implementing recommendations.

Cllr Duffy said that the proposal to out-source to Kingdom was a decision made to employ 'cheaper people'. The Council had reduced enforcement officers from 21 to 7 but were now proposing getting people back to do the same job through a private company - the 'most basic and primitive' form of out-sourcing.  They would be employed well below the average wage and would be reliant on in-work benefits.  He challenged the officers and lead member's view that these would be 'different jobs'.

He challenged the Council's claim that Kingdom's enforcement officers would not be involved in Court appearances.  This was tantamount to saying to those caught 'if you don't pay you won't end up in court'.

He presented figures to show that the Council stood to lose income of up to £100,000 by out-sourcing rather than setting up an in-house operation.

Chris Whyte in response said that the Kingdom employee's enforcement role was on the ground, patrolling streets, spotting litter dropping and issuing tickets, while the Council enforcement team, did a wider spectrum of work investigating fly-tipping crime and follow up work including preparing cases for Court. Kingdom staff would make occasional appearances in Court but would not prepare and investigate cases.

Cllr Duffy said that he had got hold of a Kingdom job description and it was very similar to that he used to have to do as an enforcement officer.  Cllr Southwood, lead member for environment admitted that a job evaluation would only be done if the Council went out to procurement after the six month pilot with Kingdom.

Cllr Kelcher, chair of Scrutiny expressed concern over the safety of enforcement officers issuing £80 Fixed Penalty Notices. Chris Whyte responded that a risk assessment would be undertaken as Brent Council was responsible for the safety of staff.

A 'social value' assessment would be incorporated into the specification if it was decided to go for external procurement after the trial. Whyye said it was essential to collect data during the trial to see what the scale of the litter problem in Brent. By out-sourcing the risk of little return via fining would rest with the contractor and not the Council.

Duffy pointed out that Kingdom would  be motivated to issue a high number of tickets as this would boost their profits. Operatives were likely to go for the easy option of targeting 'rich pickings', such as smokers outside tube stations, where they could issue many tickets in a short time, rather than areas where real action was needed on street litter.

Cllr Southwood said that Kingdom would be guided by Veolia, ward councillors and the public, Chris Whyte said monitoring of the contract was essential. He would be concerned if it was only cigarette butts.

Duffy said that the report had argued that the proposal was cost neutral but the real issue was whether it was best value for money.  He questioned how much of the £52,000 income to Brent Council would be taken up by costs of going to Court.  He claimed the Council were 'addicted to out-sourcing'.  He presented figures to suggest that there was little risk to the Council from an in-house contract but  Whyte said that Ealing Council had found their in-house provision was inefficient and had therefore out-sourced to Kingdom.

For the Committee Matt Kelcher said that after the pilot Brent Council should look at in-house provision and build social value into the process.

Cllr Moher at a loss over Oakington Manor/Furness academisation

At last night's Council Meeting Cllr Kelcher,  speaking on behalf of  Furness Primary School parents, asked Cllr Moher, Lead Member for Children and Families, what the Council had offered parents as they battled the headteacher's plans to turn Furness into an academy. Furness is in a federation with Oakington Manor Primary School with one headteacher and one governing body.

Kelcher said he had been approached by Furness parents  who could see no compelling reason for it to become an academy and could not see why the great progress the school has made should be put at risk.

They wanted to know if the Council would stand by them in their fight.

Ruth Moher said that it was difficult to know what the Council could do other than what they had done already. They had indicated to the governors that they would prefer the schools to remain community schools within the family of Brent schools.

Moher said she was happy to talk to parents to give them information about what was happening and how it had come about. However, the difficulty was that there had been consultation meetings which had not been particularly well attended and no alternative views were given.

Cllr Moher said that she understood the academy application from the governors had gone to the  government. Once that was done the school would become an academy unless the governors could be persuaded to withdraw the application.

She finished:

I don't actually know if there is anything that could be done unless there is a real groundswell of opinion from parents to make the governors think and change their mind but I've had no sense of that happening.

She offered to talk to Cllr Kelcher about the issue.

I would suggest that if the consultation meetings were small and alternative views were not given that the ward councillors, or the Council itself,  should hold a well publicised community meeting for parents and prospective parents to give information and debate the case for and against academisation. This would be followed by an independently administered ballot of parents.