Brent Council by-election will take place on January 23rd 2020

Barnhill ward

The by-election for the two vacant seats in Barnhill ward will take place on Thursday 23rd January 2020.

The vacancies follow the resignations with immediate effect of Sarah Marquis and Michael Pavey.

The notice of election will be published on the Brent Council website on December 13th 2019 and nominations will be accepted from December 16th to December 24th.

A busy time for Brent Electoral Services...

Cllr Michael Pavey resigns - By-election in Barnhill ward in January

Cllrs Butt, Choudhary, Marquis & Pavey

 I had to miss tonight's Council meeting but I understand that a by-election was announced to take place in January 2020 as a result of the resignation of a sitting councillor. The ward is currently held by three Labour councillors - Cllr Shafique Choudhary, Cllr Sarah Marquis and Cllr Michael Pavey. Michael Pavey resigned for personal reasons.

Pavey is a former Deputy Leader of the Council who stood against Cllr Muhammed Butt for the Labour leadership.LINK

The by-election is likely to be held in mid to late-January when two ward electors have asked for an election.

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.

Tom Miller to succeed Michael Pavey as lead for Stronger Communities

I understand that Cllr Tom Miller is to succeed Michael Pavey as Lead Member for Stronger Communities.

The post covers two major controversial issues among others - Libraries, including Council relationships with volunteer libraries and the Prevent Strategy.

Pavey resigned over policy differences with Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt  over how the Council should deal with government cuts.

Miller is a councillor for Willesden Green and this is his first Cabinet post. I understand that his appointment was acceptable to both factions within the Labour Group on Brent Council and avoided a push for a potentially acrimonious election.

He himself is no stranger to controversy becoming a target of right-wing commentators LINK but he has carved out for himself a role as a 'thinker' of the Left as illustrated by this article which may or may not give us a clue to his approach to his new role in terms of ethics LINK

Miller, who in 2014 defeated Graham Durham for the Brent Central CLP Trade Union Liaison post attended the Grunwick Exhibition opening. He was a supporter of the campaign to save the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green from development. He is a former member of the Brent Scrutiny Committee.

Miller blogs, not very frequently, HERE.

Twitter: @TomMillerUK 

Brent Labour Group's Away Day Blues

Word reaches me that Brent Labour Group's recent Away Day with senior officers in a Cricklewood Hotel gave some councillors the blues  - and it was nothing to do with the Tories!

Apparently Carolyn Downs, Brent Chief Executive, gave them a pep talk, explaining that it was difficult for her and the officers to work constructively with a Group suffering from such a marked lack of cohesion and goodwill,

An external facilitor worked with the Group on exercises to improve bonding. There may even have been a little mindfulness.

Reports indicate that it didn't work very well as later some critics of Cllr Butt's leadership were allegedly accused by at least one councillor of racial bias against him.

Meanwhile questions are being asked about the £18,000 plus allowance being saved by the non-appointment of a replacement for Cllr Pavey.  Is it going back into Council coffers? When the Cabinet was reduced from 10 to 8 the saved allowances were distributed amongst the remaining members of the Cabinet.  LINK

Stronger Communities post won't be filled: the repercussions

Information is sparse but I understand that there will be no immediate appointment made to Brent Cabinet to the lead member for Stronger Communities post made vacant by the resignation of Cllr Michael Pavey LINK.  Instead there will be a review of the post/Cabinet.

I had heard that there was a dispute within the Labour Group about whether the appointment should be made by Council Leader Muhammed Butt or voted on by the whole group.

The review sidesteps this issue in the wake of what was described as a group meeting that gave Butt 'a hard time' last week.

It is unclear whether Butt will manage the post in the interim as he did when the Environmentl lead was vacated by Cllr Keith Perrin, before later making his own appointment.

The failure to appoint puts power into the hands of a smaller loyalist Cabinet cabal and avoids Butt having to cope with an independently minded lead member elected by the group. 

The post is quite sensitive at the moment with ongoing negotiations over the volunteer Preston Library Hub LINK and the development of a Community Library Strategy and controversy over Brent Council's implementation of the Prevent Strategy LINK.

The development may affect Preston Library where there was a tension between Brent Council wanting to dispose of its assets at maximum profit and its stated commitment to enabling community groups to have a secure base from which to carry out their activities.

Contesting the Prevent Strategy in Brent and the Labour Party

I haven't reported back on Monday's Time to Talk about Extremism Meeting LINK because, to be honest, it was hard to get motivated as very little happened.  The three expert speakers said not much, but at some length, and seemed curiously detached from real events on the ground.

Cllr Michael Pavey, at the time the lead Cabinet member for Stronger Communities, (I wonder who will replace him? Will the Labour Group decide or will s/he be appointed by Cllr Butt?) in his breezy way said that he would be very disappointed if Prevent made any Brent students feel they could not express themselves. There were murmers of dissent from the audience. He accepted that Prevent was not ideal but claimed, Sinatra fashion, that Brent could do it its way. Prevent was a statutory responsibility and the Counci had to comply.

Similarly in his introductory remarks Cllr Butt said that didn't like Prevent but he wanted to engage with the community and have a frank discussion about it. He also cited the statutory duty.

Interestingly, and I hope to get further information on this, a Muslim solicitor challenged Butt and Pavey saying that while it was a duty for local authorities to prevent recruitment into extremism it was not statutory that to do so they had to follow the Prevent Strategy.

A passionate speech by Humera Khan of the An-Nisa Society challenged the basis of the Prevent Strategy, its stereotyping of the Muslim community as potential terrorists, its impact on pupils' confidence in expressing their views and the failure of the Council to respond to her organisation's request for a dialogue on the issue. An-Nisa, who have been active in Brent for 30 years, run a Sunday School in Wembley that has been attended by hundreds of young people.

Most questions  and contributions from the floor were critical of the Prevent Strategy whilst also clearly opposed to young people getting involved in extremist activities (although 'extremist', 'terrorist', 'radicalisation' were never clearly defined).  Cllr Liz Dixon recognised the problems with Prevent but asked what would replace it.

In my contribution I asked how the community organisations that Brent engaged with over the strategy had been chosen, remarking that it would be a temptation to unconsciously choose those that were easiest because of existing political, religious or friendship links - ignoring those hard to reach. When Monitoring Prevent in Brent LINK had asked which organisations the Council worked with they had been told the Council were not allowed to give that information. I remarked that I was shocked to discover from members sitting at my table that the Brent Youth Parliament had not been consulted - surely given the concerns abnout young people they should have been first in line?

Cllr Pavey responded by saying that he was frustrated by the restriction on revealing who the Council engaged with and feared that fed suspicion. He said if they were allowed to reveal the information he was sure people would be reassured. He accepted the need to consult with young people through the Brent Youth Parliament - but now of course he is not in the role.

The second half of the meeting were group discussions which were reported back to the whole meeting. Most centred around enabling the different communities of Brent to speak to each other and learn from each other, engage in mutual festivals and cultural events as a way of breaking down barriers. To do this the Council should provide neutral affordable public spaces and facilities - a problem when cuts have meant that Brent Council has closed several  such spaces and others such as Granville and Carlton Centres and  Preston Community Library Hub are under threat of closure.   The young people at my table were particularly concerned about what happened in schools regarding breaking down barriers and wanted higher quality religious education as well as opportunities to meet, discuss and socialise across schools.

Chris Williams, the head of Community Safety in Brent (having previously worked for the Local Government Association and National Policing Improvement Agency), is a passionate advocate of the Prevent Strategy, often active on social media (Twitter @SaferWilliams) in its defence. He may have been disappointed that there was not a more robust defence of the Prevent Strategy at the meeting. (See his comment at the end of the Labour Against Prevent statement below).

The flip-chart recorded suggestions made at the meeting will be written up into a report to inform the Council's approach.

It will be interesting to see how Labour Party policy develops in terms of Prevent. Andy Burnham, shadow Home Secretar, was very critical and Diane Abbott has now been given his post.

A Labour Against Prevent group LINK has been formed.  I do not know how representative it is, or how much support they have, but this is what they have to say:

-->

We are a group of Labour Party members and supporters who recognise the racist and destructive intent of the PREVENT duties, as laid out under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and who seek to oppose and repeal them through Labour Party channels, connections, and communities.

We recognise that these duties were brought in by a Labour government under Tony Blair in response to the 2005 London bombings, with the wider intent to undermine opposition to the Iraq war and British foreign policy in the Middle East through the racist portrayal of Arabs and Muslims as inherently violent and drawn to ‘extremism,’ ‘radicalisation’ and ‘terrorism.’ The PREVENT duties are intrinsically Islamophobic as they explicitly target Muslims and those of perceived Muslim backgrounds as imminent threats to security, and falsely conflate expressions of Islam with an increased tendency towards extreme ideologies and violence. We believe that the discriminatory and repressive foundations of PREVENT present a fundamental threat to our civil liberties and, as such, we call for the full repeal of the PREVENT legislation.

We recognise that British foreign policy is a root cause of the threat of violence to Britain. We further acknowledge that violence from individuals and groups on the fascist far Right pose a severe threat to the peace and stability of Britain. The PREVENT legislation does not reflect this and, thus, we conclude that its aim is not to combat ‘terrorism,’ but rather to stifle dissent through the creation of a surveillance state by blurring the line between welfare provision and national security. Furthermore, we recognise that the continued propagation of the controversial and widely criticised PREVENT duties, brought into statutory law by the Conservative government in September 2015, is used to feed into the wider government Islamophobic narrative that seeks to deflect responsibility for the harsh austerity measures through blaming Muslims, refugees, and immigrants for the social problems caused by failing neoliberalism, economic recession and ideological cuts to welfare services.

PREVENT claims to offset the risk of terrorism by challenging its apparent roots in ‘extremist’ ideology, however this ‘conveyor belt theory’ has no empirical support and, as such, has been widely discredited. We acknowledge that there is no evidence that PREVENT actually can or has prevented acts of ‘terrorism.’ As such, we maintain that the best strategy to tackle such threats is to recognise the role of British foreign and domestic policies that target British Muslims and Islamic countries in causing disillusionment and disagreement with the British state, and to work proactively at both national and grassroots level to ensure the safeguarding and social inclusion of those disillusioned and isolated by such policies.

We recognise that the role of Labour in the Iraq war is an indelible stain on our party’s history. Furthermore, the lack of sincere apology or remorse from those responsible, the damning conclusions of the Chilcot report, and Labour’s continued neo-colonialist and oppressive policies, including the lack of any formal commitment to tackle the oppressive PREVENT legislation, and indeed the vocal support for it from many prominent Labour politicians, continue to isolate and anger our BAME members and supporters. For too long, we have taken BAME votes for granted and ploughed ahead with such policies in the knowledge that BAME members sympathetic to the Labour Party will continue to vote for us. This is not good enough. We must work for these communities, as we work for all others. We must recognise the wrongdoings of Labour, apologise and work to rectify them and to support our members in the face of state sponsored racism. We therefore call on all Labour members and representatives to join us in our fight to for anti-racism and equality, to oppose and undermine this legislation at every opportunity, and to ultimately force the reppeal of the PREVENT legislation. 

What is Prevent?

• ‘PREVENT’ refers to Section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 that contains a duty on specified authorities – including local authorities, government departments, and ‘education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health sectors’ – to have ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.’
• PREVENT is a key component of the Government’s 2011 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, known as CONTEST. It builds on the previous PREVENT strategy brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Government after the London bombings in 2005. It is a dangerous form of intelligence gathering directed at individuals who are, by definition, not suspected of involvement in criminal activity.
• The PREVENT strategy has been widely criticised for its McCarthyist tendencies to cast all Muslims and those of perceived Muslim background as a suspect community, and particularly for its use of ambiguous and politically charged language – notably British ‘values,’ ‘radicalisation,’ and ‘extremism’ – that are routinely and intentionally weaponised by the state for its own political ends.
• The government can provide no legal definitions for such terms that do not contravene basic freedoms of speech and thought. As such, their definitions remain vague and open to abuse, enabling the government to control the language and debate surrounding Islamic ‘extremism,’ and thus to adapt its definition to suit its political agenda.
• Training ranges from e-learning, private or in-house trainers, to a government DVD and script based training programme known as WRAP (Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent).
• The success of PREVENT is difficult to measure as it seeks to tackle the cause of ‘terrorism’ before the act occurs. However, it is widely accepted that there is no evidence to demonstrate any link between religious or ‘extreme’ ideology and acts of terrorism.
Our Aims:
• To pass motions at our local Constituency Labour Parties to put the fight back against the PREVENT laws on the national Labour Party agenda with the ultimate aim of gaining a commitment from the Labour Party to repeal the racist PREVENT agenda in its manifesto for the next general election.
• To lobby our MPs and councils to support our cause through advocacy, protests, policy motions, and public statements of support. MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham have already indicated their adversity to PREVENT, we demand a full and public commitment from all Labour MPs to oppose, undermine, and repeal these laws entirely.
• To work with Labour Party members, Trades Unions, and local communities through meetings, conferences, workshops, lobbying, trainings, and protests to demand full transparency and accountability in the implementation of the PREVENT policy in the different local institutions and sectors, and to combat the implementation of PREVENT through disengagement and boycott of the duties.

 Chris Williams Have you thought about learning about Prevent? How it doesn't use the conveyor belt theory? How it's a safeguarding process, designed to protect people who are vulnerable to being radicalised because (in many cases) they have mental illness or learning difficulties? How it works with this vulnerable to ALL forms of radicalisation including far-right (by far the majority in some parts of the country)? Or that hundreds of vulnerable people have been protected from travelling to join ISIS in Syria - and therefore saving lives?

Let me know if you need any info

Pavey resigns from Brent Cabinet over differences with Council Leader Muhammed Butt

Butt & Pavey (left and right) in happier times

Former Brent Council Deputy Leader, Cllr Michael Pavey, has resigned from the Brent Cabinet over differences with Council Leader, Cllr Muhamemd Butt,  over how best to serve residents at a time of 'brutal Tory cuts'.  Pavey contested the Council leadership unsuccessfully in May and was demoted to Lead Member for Stronger Communities.

This is Cllr Pavey's letter to fellow members of the Labour Group:

Dear all,

I am writing to confirm that following much consideration I have tendered my resignation from the Cabinet.

I think it is clear that the Leader and myself have developed differing views regarding how Brent Council can best serve its residents at a time of brutal Tory cuts.

I look forward to working with you all as a backbencher for Barnhill, campaigning hard for another barnstorming Labour victory in 2018 and continuing my national work to protect Sure Start Children's Centres.

With best wishes,
Mikey

Cllr. Michael Pavey
Labour Councillor for Barnhill
Cabinet Member for Stronger Communities, Brent Council

Differences may well have arisen as the Coucil prepares its budget for 2017-18 and submits a 4 year Action Plan as a consequence of agreeing to a freeze in the Revenue Support Grant.

It  will be interesting to see if opposition to Cllr Butt's approach coalesces around Pavey.

Brent Council meeting on 'extremism' leaves community voices off the platform

Invitation from Brent Council:

As a respected community and voluntary sector organisation doing valuable work in the borough, we are writing to you to make you aware of the second of a series of events called It’s Time to Talk - focussing on important matters affecting our local community. The event will take place at Brent Civic Centre on the 3^rd of October 2016 at 6pm, discussing the challenging issue of extremism in all its forms.  We would like to take this opportunity to invite all members of the community and voluntary sector in Brent to the event.  

There will be a number of high-profile speakers attending including Alex Krasodomski-Jones of the think-tank Demos, Dr Sara Silvestri of City University London and a number of other speakers who will participate in a ‘question time’ style event on this challenging but important issue. Attendees will be asked to submit their questions online prior to the event.

This event is part of the Council’s wider It’s Time to Talk campaign which aims to empower residents and community leaders to talk about difficult issues like this one and work together with partners to tackle them. If you would like to have your say on the issues, please come along to this FREE event and help us create a stronger, safer Brent.

Since the above invitation was sent to me a further speaker has been added: Dr Varun Uberoi of Brunel Univsity. The meeting will be chaired by Cllr  Michael Pavey, Brent Council  lead member for Stronger Communities.

It strikes me as insulting that there is not a single member of the local community, or a local community voluntary organisation on the platform.  They are just there as audience to hear from the experts. Surely these grassroots organisations are experts on how the government's approach to extremism is affecting people locally?

Local organisations have challenged Cllr Butt, the leader of the Council, on its implementation of the Prevent programme, without success and were unable to elicit any information from him about which local organisations he had consulted on the issue. A request to him from An-Nisa, a group working in  Brent for more than 30 years, to facilitate a meeting with Brent headteachers on the extremism issue, and particularly the implementation of Prevent in schools, has also met with no response.

Prevent itself has been criticised by Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham who said:

The Prevent duty to report extremist behaviour is today’s equivalent of internment in Northern Ireland – a policy felt to be highly discriminatory against one section of the community. 

  That single event  (9/11) shocked us out of the optimism and unity that had been so tangible just five years before. That is exactly what it was designed to do, just like the Manchester bomb, but this time, instead of building bridges, we seem to have slipped back into the language of division, suspicion and alienation.

An Early Day Motion has been tabled in the House of Commons reflecting community concerns over Prevent:

Early Day Motion 425

That this House welcomes the Government's strong commitment to keeping Britain safe from terrorist attacks; believes that the Prevent strategy is no longer fit for purpose to serve this agenda; notes that there is little evidence to support Prevent or the conveyor belt theory of radicalisation; further notes that no impact evaluations or indicators are available that show Prevent has been successful; further believes that the severe lack of transparency with the Prevent strategy strongly undermines it; notes that Prevent has had a worrying impact on freedom of expression at schools, colleges and universities; believes that the behavioural indicators of possible extremism are vague and unhelpful; believes that the rhetoric of British values is alienating to many who already believed in those values and encourages ministers to adopt a more inclusive approach and rebrand these as universal values; is strongly concerned that the British Muslim community has been particularly stigmatised by Prevent; encourages ministers to engage with affected communities and their relevant grievances, including around foreign policy issues; further encourages ministers to engage with community actors and organisations that have grassroots credibility; believes that ultimately extremism is best tackled by the Government working in partnership with communities and engendering genuine two-way trust, neither of which Prevent has enabled; and therefore calls on ministers to scrap the Prevent strategy in its entirety and replace it with a community-led programme that builds institutions and resilience for tackling social problems, has grassroots credibility and empowers communities rather than alienating them.

If the policy stigmatises and alienates the Muslim community it appears entirely wrong to leave them off a platform where there is a real danger of the presentations being academic and unconnected with the real issues on the ground - although of course I may be proved wrong.

These are notes on the panel:

Alex  Krasodomski-Jones (Demos):

Alex is a researcher of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media. His primary research interest is political extremism and its reportage on social media. He also manages CASM’s analytics capability, including data collection, analytics and visualisation. 

Alex is a frequent media commentator, and writes regularly for the Huffington Post and Spectator. He led Demos’ project mapping the political Twittersphere ahead of the 2015 General Election, which was launched on BBC Newsnight

Dr Sara Silvestri (City University):

Dr Silvestri has directed the Islam in Europe programme at the European Policy Centre (Brussels) and has been a research consultant to the British Council, Ethnobarometer, the European Commission, and the British Government. Prior to that, she had worked in the Cabinet of the European Commission President and had been an Associate Fellow with Chatham House (London).

As an expert on Islam in Europe, religion, and intercultural relations, Sara serves in the advisory board of the British Council's 'Our Shared Future' programme, the ESRC 'Radicalisation Research' portal, and the EuroMediterranean Foundation Anna Lindh (for which she contributed to the first Gallup opinion poll of the EuroMediterranean region).

She is also a member of the scientific committee of GIERFI (a network for the study of Islam and women in Europe) and is a member of the UN Alliance of Civilizations' Global Experts group.

Dr Varun Uberoi (Brunel University):

  I combine normative political theory and political science to examine the theory and practice of fostering unity amongst the culturally diversity citizens of modern polities. My theoretical work examines what unity amongst the citizens of a polity is, how it differs from similar ideas like loyalty and belonging, why such unity is important and how it can be fostered ethically. My empirical work utilises archival and elite interview data to examine how the governments of two parliamentary democracies, Britain and Canada, have attempted to foster such unity as well as the role that Muslims often play in contemporary debates about unity.

Michael Pavey, none the less, sees this event as involving the community, and reflects some of the approach recommendations of the EDM:

The issue of extremism, and how best to prevent it, is a complex, emotive, and highly debated one.

Here in Brent, our aim is to use this event to really involve the community and create real, community-led solutions to tackle the issue of extremism, in all its forms, in our Borough. I hope that residents from all backgrounds will come along and share their ideas.

I am far from convinced that this event, given the format, will fulfil Pavey's aim.

To attend you need a ticket available HERE

Preston Library wins 3 month licence extension and Council community library strategy

 Statement by Cllr Butt  (Leader) & submissions by Cllrs Harrison, Hossain & Warren*



Submissions by Michael Rushe & Philip Bromberg, statements by Cllr Pavey & Cllr Southwood*
 


Cabinet discussion and decision

Brent Cabinet agreed to a 3 month extension of Preston Community Library's licence tonight to enable the Council to formulate a Community Library Strategy which would cover all Brent community libraries. The situation will be reviewed in January 2017.

The Cabinet was addressed by Michael Rushe of SKPPRA and Philip Bromberg of Preston Community Library. They presented a closely argued evidence based case for the continuation of the library and for rejection of the officers' report.

Cllrs Harrison and Hossain, Preston ward councillors, spoke on behalf of the library with Harrison calling for the Council to keep its promises to the Preston volunteers. Hossain spoke of the library's key role in facilitating a place for the area's diverse community to meet and socialise.

Cllr Pavey, lead member for Stronger Communities and Libraries rejected the report's terminology of a 'pop up library' to describe Preston Community Hub.  The bookcase at Willesden Green station was a 'pop up' - Preston with its shelves of books, classes and cinema was much more than that. He argued for the primacy of social value in any procurement process rather than financial value. The financial equivalent of the volunteers' efforts should be included in a calculation of social value. Pavey suggested that in any design for the new building the library space shoudl come first and the flats second.

Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the group, if it got part of the redeveloped building, would  not be expected to pay the £51,000 commercial rent mentioned in the officers' report but he did not specify a peppercorn rent either.

He emphasised that he did not want to be in a conflict situation with the volunteer libraries but wanted to work with them. The libraries complemented the six Brent Council libraries and did not replace them.

During the discussion it was clarified that the report granted the Council permission to start a dialogue with the owner of the garage neighbouring the site about possible purchase to develop the garage's corner plot alongside the library. No approach had been made as yet.

There was a cautionary note from Gail Tolley, Strategic Director for Chldren and Families. She said that although the possible provision of a Primary Pupil Referral Unit on the library site was being dealt with separately and there were enough spaces for Reception pupils in the area, the Council were still getting 'in year' demand from families moving into the area from other parts of London, the UK or elsewhere. There was particular pressure on Years 3 and 4. There was no way of predicting the numbers or age groups of children who would arrive between now and next July.  More would be known by the end of the 3 month period,  in terms of the possible use of the site for bulge classes for those children,  but beyond that was still unpredictable.

* Video date should be September 13th NOT August 13th. The hottest September day for a century got me confused!

Brent's LOBO loans at 68% premium merit deeper scrutiny

In April I published some information from Cllr Michael Pavey on the complex issue of LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) loans. At the time Pavey was deputy leader of the Labour Group and lead member for finance. He confirmed that Brent Council had £95.5m in LOBO borrowing. LINK

In June 2014 journalist Ian Fraser published an article entitled 'How City banks and brokers stitched up local authorities with LOBO loans' and gave this Brent example.

Click on image to enlarge

In 2015 a Channel 4 Dispatches programme 'How Councils Blow Your Millions' revealed how banks had exploited local councils through LOBO loans and as a result a Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry was set up to examine the issue.  Bob Blackman MP was a member of the Committee.  He was leader of the Brent Conservative group on Brent Council and deputy leader of the Council when it was in coalition with Brent Liberal Democrats prior to the local elections in May 2010. The LOBOS borrowing  was arranged between November 2002 and April 2010.  Minutes of the Communities and Local Government Committee oral evidence can be found HERE

Department of Local Communities and Local Government statistics for 2015-16 showed Brent Council had total long-term borrowings of £423.7m of which £328.2m was Public Works Loan Board and £95.5m LOBOs.

The campaign Debt Resistance in covering Newham Council's massive exposure to LOBOS mentioned Brent LINK:

  At Brent Council where a similar £10m LOBO loan from RBS was analysed, it was found the council was paying £1.2m more for the loan from RBS, than if it had borrowed via the UK Treasury Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) – standard practice for councils. To exit the loan would cost Brent a further £3-4m in “break penalties  

Brent Cabinet will be receiving the 2015-16 Treasury Management Outturn Report at its meeting on Monday August 15th.  The report acknowledges the high cost of redemption of LOBOS loans:

No debt was restructured during the year and no lenders exercised options to vary the terms of loans on LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) terms. The Council has borrowed £95.5m under LOBO transactions, all of which were entered into in the period November 2002 to April 2010. Unlike PWLB loans, there is no formula for the cost of redemption of LOBOs, and the price quoted would depend on any bank’s view on its commercial advantage. The banks’ positions have been insured through the derivatives markets and to renegotiate these arrangements would be very expensive. The average premium on our LOBO portfolio is about 68%: this would mean that it would cost £8.4m to redeem a LOBO with a nominal value of £5m. However, there is no established formula for the redemption price and the actual cost be higher.

The 68% average premium applied to total LOBO borrowings of £95.5m would give additional redemption costs of £65m with the possibility, as in the last sentence above, that it could be higher. It would be worthwhile for the Cabinet (or perhaps Scrutiny) to go into the issue a little deeper and particularly to explore what appears to be some complacency about the situation:

There are complex arguments made about LOBOs, by their supporters and by their detractors. The Council's position is simply that the LOBOs are part of its portfolio, and must therefore be managed as effectively as possible. There are no plans to enter into further LOBO contracts. However, it should be noted that the average rate of interest being paid on LOBOs is little different to that on PWLB debt (4.75% compared to 4.71% at 31 March) and the range of rates lower. The most expensive LOBO was at 6.234% on 31 March, compared with the most expensive PWLB at 8.875%.

Since, the end of 2015/16, Barclay’s Bank decided to give up its lender option to £15m of LOBOs. There were three loans of £5 million each, with interest rates of 3.95%, 4.35% and 4.5%, with maturities between 2048 and 2076. Barclays did this to ensure it could meet Basle III Capital Requirements that banks need to comply with by 2019. As these changes are to the borrowers’ advantages, it merely needed to notify us and provide us with the signed declaration of its change. It is likely, according to Arlingclose, our Treasury advisers, that other lenders will soon follow suit. 


These are Brent Council's LOBO loans according to Debt Resistance. The tables on its website are interactive providing more information LINK:

£157k payout leaves Davani laughing all the way to the kennels

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK today reveals that former Director of Brent Human Resources, Cara Davani, was paid out £157,610 when she left the Council, almost to the day, last year. Davani as well as her job with Brent, also had her own HR Consultancy and a dog breeding business.

At the time Brent Council said:

'Cara Davani, Director of HR and Administration, will leave the Council at the end of June. She intends to take a career break for a while.

The Council is grateful for the significant contribution that Cara has made over the last 3 years.’

Part of Davani's 'contribution' was to land the Council with an Employment Tribunal case in whcih she and the Council were found to have victimised and racially discriminated against an employee, Rosemarie Clarke.

Cllr Butt and Cara Davani

Council leader Muhammed Butt went out of his way to protect Davani and refused to allow any disciplinary action against her.  The Pavey review of Brent Human resources was excluded from dealing with the Employment Tribunal case. This was a decision that Pavety recently said he regretted remarking that he should have fought harder for a broader remit LINK.

Philip Grant and I both tried to raise the case at Brent Council meetings but were denied the opportunity.  LINK

I very seldom agree with Tories but Cllr John Warren's comment to the BKT hits the nail on the head:

£157,610 compensation for loss of office is a sick joke. There's no way they should have given her a penny because it's a reward for failure. It would be interesting to see how they justify it as I don't believe they needed to pay her that. Not a bad deal to be rubbish at your job and get a payoff like that.

Brent Cabinet amend Tenterden Pavilion community asset transfer

Following representations from residents the Brent Cabinet amended the proposal on the community asset transfer of Tenterden Pavilion and playing fields to Wembley Education Charitable Trust (Lycee  International des Londres Winston Churchill).

The amendment made the granting of the 30 year lease to the WECT subject to them entering an agreement with Forest United (1973) Youth FC, a local charitable football club for its use of the pavilion and grounds during periods when it is not in use by the WECT.

Members noted 'the additional opportunity for community access by other groups, in what will be a significant new local sporting facility.'

Members delegated authority to the Director of Resources to finalise and agree terms of leasehold and associated licence disposal to WECT in consultation with the Operational Director of Environment Services.

Speaking on the proposal Cllr Roxanne Mashari made it clear that if WECT did not reach an agreement with Forest United the proposal would come back to Cabinet.

Welcoming the amendment Cllr Michael Pavey, (Barnhill ward in which the Lycee is situated) said that the Lycee were not good neighbours- overgrown grass on frontage and refusing use as a polling station - while Forest United were good neighbours and had been responsible for kicking off the CAT process.

He pointed out that WECT was based at the French Embassy, not in Wembley.

Residents had asked for the original  proposal to be deferred or rejected. In a letter to the Council written in May, Forest United had asked  that their original bid remained on the table as a viable proposal.  They asked that a project with WECT be 'an entirely joint venture from the start with both parties having an equal say in the process and subsequent build.'  They said that 'security of access to facilities is vital to the long-term growth and sustainability of Forest united.

The amendment did not meet these demands entirely and it is clear that much will depend on the negotiations carried out by Council officers with both parties.

Evening Standard alleges Cllr Butt concealed Tayo Oladapo's death to avoid by-election

The London Evening Standard LINK today said that it had seen e-mails that showed  a 'former Labour staffer' had been told to conceal Cllr Oladapo''s death because Cllr Butt did not want a by-election in Kilburn.  The article quotes 'Labour insiders' as saying Butt did not want a by-election in case an 'unsupportive' candidate was elected affecting his chances in the leadership election.

Cllr Michael Pavey, who is contesting the leadership, has called for a full investigation into these 'very serious allegations'.

The Kilburn Times has published a story on the Standard story which includes comment by Muhammed Butt and Cllr John Duffy LINK