Should others be butting into the Brent Labour leadership contest?

The contest for the leadership of the Labour Group on Brent Council spilled over into the Planning Committee last night as tensions boiled over ahead of Saturday's decision.

Current indications are that the vote will be close.  I have been unable to substantiate suggestions that a third candidate has thrown her/his hat into the ring but discount a commenter's suggestion that Neil Hamilton is just the person to bring integrity back into Brent Council.

Michael Pavey has come in for criticism over his failure to support parents campaigning againsg the forced acadmeisation of Gladstone Primary and Copland High schools while there has been claim and counter-claim over the nature of his politics in reaction to his 'manifesto letter'. (See comments HERE)

Muhammed Butt has been criticised for his actions over pushing for the double Planning Committee this week and blamed for the resulting chaos, as well as ongoing criticism for his over-controlling behaviour in general.

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have lobbed in a few bricks of their own with John Warren writing to the CEO and Paul Lorber to Jeremy Corbyn calling for action against Butt over the Facebook issue.

Former councillor Alison Hopkins has revealed that Cllr Butt made several attempts to join the the Liberal Democrats but Paul Lorber has not responded to a request to confirm the allegation.

These interventions could well cause some councillors to close ranks around Butt who has yet to issue his own manifesto for his continued leadership - or if he has, perhaps someone could pass it on.

Some have wanted this contest to be kept strictly an internal Labour Group affair and dislike public discussion such as has happened on this blog. This does raise an interesting question about the extent to which the public should have a view, or even a say, in who leads their Council. Afer all they will be at the receiving end of any change in policy as a result of the contest.

'Dear Mo and Michael' please confirm your promise on Preston Community Library

https://www.flickr.com//photos/saveprestonlibrary/show/

Preston Community Library have called on Muhammed Butt and Michael Pavey, contenders for the leadership of the Brent Labour Group, and thus of the Council to stand by their promise on the future of their library:

Dear Mo, Dear Michael,

I hope you are both well. You were both present at our public meeting on 7 May 2014 at which Brent Labour Party made a very clear election promise to offer the Preston Library building "at a peppercorn rent to any local group who can provide a sustainable community library........that is our pledge". That promise is the reason why we have invested thousands of hours and many thousands of pounds in creating Preston Community Library.

In recent weeks we have become concerned about that promise. In particular, we noticed that a member of the Cabinet referred to the possibility of housing being built on that site - something never mentioned at the time of the last election.

Can you please confirm that if, this time next week, you are the Leader of Brent Council, you will honour that very clear election promise to support a library in Carlton Avenue East?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Philip Bromberg,
Chair, Preston Community Library

Pavey: I want to lead a 'political, campaigning Council'

James Powney has published the email Cllr Pavey sent to Brent Labour Group regarding his leadership challenge LINK

I reproduce it here:

Dear friends,

It's been a tough couple of years in Brent.

We have the most fantastic community in London. Warm, diverse and dynamic.

But it is under sustained assault from a truly heartless Government. 

What are we doing in response?

Too often Brent Council is cold and bureaucratic. 

The Employment Tribunal finding of race discrimination was a hammer-blow to everything we hold dear.

And too often our political response has been to blame the Government - but to offer no alternative, no resistance. 

We can do so much better than this. 

We've lost our sense of purpose. We've lost our conviction. We've lost our heart.

In two years we all face an extremely difficult local election. Now is the perfect time to refocus and reinvigorate. To make a fresh start. And that requires new leadership.

That's why I'm standing to be your Leader.

Our Group is divided and unhappy. I believe that's because we've lost sight of the Labour values which we all share: breaking down injustice, building equality. 

I want to lead us in developing a fresh new vision we can all unite around.

Let's then deliver this vision together. Let's stop moaning about the Government and actually stand up to them. 

No more submissive delivery of cuts: let's be a political, campaigning Council. Let's work with our community and other Labour councils to mobilise a major campaign to change Government policy. 

This is a huge change from where we are today. So we need a new kind of leadership. 

I will be more inclusive, more democratic, less fearful of debate.

These aren't just vague aspirations. I have a range of detailed ideas which I'm really looking forward to discussing with you in the days ahead.

Things can be so much better than they are today. 

Let's work together to build something we can all be truly proud of.

Let's reunite around our shared Labour values. 

Let's harness the immense talents of our Labour Group to become a political, campaigning Council. 

And let's choose a Leader with the skills and values to make it happen.

Best wishes,

Mikey

Butt rounds up candidates for Saturday's election

Things were hotting up tonight in the Labour battle ahead of the AGM to be held on Saturday.  Muhammed Butt is said to be rounding up a field of candidates and it is alleged that one of the group said the nominees would exclude the 'old white men' of Brent Labour.

Cllr Butt is claimed to have approached Cllr Margaret McLennan as deputy leader and Cllr Amer Agha as chair of the Planning Committee.

The number of people on his list exceeds the number of posts available so there may have been some double offers. The names I have heard tonight may include some who would rather be on the other side but include Shama Tatler, Aslam Choudry, Sabina Khan, Krupesh Hirani, Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray, Ahmad Shahzad and Arshad Mahmood.

Roxanna Mashari seems to have aroused opposition from some of Butt's group who are alleged to have  described her as 'toxic'. Aslam Choudry and Muhammed Butt found themselves  mired in controversy last week over Facebook posts.  Cllr McLennan's failure to support residents over the  Byron Court school expansion and her lack of visibility has made her unpopular in her ward.  Cllr Agha is currently vice chair of Planning Committee and voted for the unpopular Twin Towers development which Sarah Marquis, the chair, opposed.

Cllr James Denselow as far as I have been able to ascertain is not one of Butt's choices.

On the wilder side I have heard suggestions that Butt may seek support from the Kenton Conservatives if he is unsure of a majority when the positions go to Full Council.

Pavey challenges Butt for Brent Labour Group leadership

There has been little rest for Brent Labour councillors over the weekend following the news of likely contests for leadership at Saturday's Labour Group AGM.

Michael Pavey will be challenging Muhammed Butt for the leadership.  So far no job has emerged for Butt from Sadiq Khan, but intriguingly Butt's relatives seem to be pushing him as a possible successor in Khan's Tooting constituency.  George Galloway has hinted that he may stand in Tooting - what a combo!

Senior councillors rejected Butt's suggestion for deputy and I understand that a pliable pudding is standing.  Hopefully someone with more credibility will throw their hat into the ring

Sarah Marquis has been a well-informed and independent Chair of Planning, presiding over a committee of lesser talents. As Butt is a champion of Quintain and all its deeds he may push for someone more pliable in that role too.

Ruth Moher has been a low profile lead member for children and families and has frustrated many by her failure to take a firm position on forced academies.  Both Cllr Shama Tatler and Cllr 'Jumbo' Chan as teachers have a keen interest in education although there has been no confirmation either will challenge Moher for the role.

Cllr Eleanor Southwood has had to deal with Cllr Duffy's revelations over alleged Council incompetence at Environment and a contest between the two of them would be interesting.

Regeneration and housing are key areas,  particularly in the light of the GLA campaign and recent controversial regeneration projects, including South Kilburn, and there may be a challenge to Cllr Margaret McLennan based on a failure to stand up to developers on affordable housing provision.

There are a number of others who may come forward including the ambitious Cllr Roxanne Mashari and Cllr Sam Stopp. Stopp has recently made critical comments on the planning consultation procedures in the borough and called for more open and transparent dealings with residents. Matt Kelcher has probably been chair of Scrutiny for too short a period to face a challenge.

Overall however with 56 councillors, the majority of whom as far as the public are concerned are faceless, and because they don't speak at council meetings have little political form (apart from putting their hands up on command), it is hard to know how close Butt's critics are to garnering sufficient votes. 

Ex Cllr James Powney gives his account of the process on his blog LINK

Process in the Labour Group

It may be worth noting the due process in Group meetings, as they appear to have escaped Cllr Butt and possibly others.  Votes are held of all the paid up Labour councillors and no one else.  The vote is by secret ballot, and follows the rules known as "exhaustive ballot".  This means that where there are multiple candidates (as I imagine there would be if Cllr Pavey becomes leader as far as the Deputy Leader post goes), the candidate with the lowest number is elimated and a new vote taken, until somebody get 50% plus one of the votes.

The Group officers (such as Leader and Deputy Leader) are voted on by the whole group, as should other positions such as the Planning Chair and the members of the Executive.  This also applies to the new Deputy Mayor, but the Mayor post is normally taken by whoever was last year's deputy without an election. 

The Scrutiny positions are voted on by the non Executive members (i.e. excluding the Leader, Deputy Leader, Executive and (I think) the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

Since all these votes are by secret ballot, they can be expected to take a long time and be unpredictable.  My past experience of such elections is that many councillors promise their votes to multiple candidates.  I take it from Cllr Butt's attempts to suspend one of his critics and other rumours I have heard, that he is far from confident of victory.

A small victory for democracy in the Brent Labour Group?

In an exclusive story today the Brent and Kilburn times LINK reports that an attempt by Muhammed Butt to give the leader of the Labour group the power to appoint his/her own deputy, rather than have an open election for the post by the whole group of councillor, has been thwarted.

The regional London Labour Party has ruled that there should be a contest after protests from senior Labour councillors.

The current deputy is Cllr Michael Pavey.

The Labour Group's Annual General Meeting is on May 14th where constitutionally Muhammed Butt could be challenged for the leadership.

Brent Council has £95.5m in LOBO loans and does not intend to withdraw at present

Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council and lead member for finance has confirmed that Brent Council has £95.5m in LOBO (Lender Option, Borrower Option) loans which have been the subject of much criticism. LINK

Cllr Pavey says that the loans were taken out prior to 2010 and none since. He states:

The council has no plans to take out further LOBO loans.

If opportunities arise to withdraw from these loans in a financially advantageous way, the council will look at this very seriously. But our current estimate is that the lowest-cost option to Brent residents is to allow the loans to mature in the usual way.

Please be assured that I'm keeping an eye on this. Cllr Filson also took a close interest in this matter when he was chair of scrutiny. Obviously sadly he is no longer here to give his opinions, but I think it's fair to say that he was supportive of our current position - though critical of our predecessors for investing in the first place.

MPs, Council leaders and others have come together to request that the Treasury Select Committee look into the matter LINK:

We are writing in response to coverage of Lender Option, Borrower option (LOBO) loans sold to local authorities and housing associations – exposed by Channel 4 Dispatches and recently covered by the Evening Standard, The Independent and Financial Times (9-12 March), where banks are reported to have made up-front trading profits of £1.5 billion.

We believe it is important to understand how 250 local authorities came to take out at least £15 billion in LOBO loans, containing embedded derivatives. Since the 1989 Hammersmith and Fulham swaps case, the use of derivatives by UK local government has been potentially unlawful.

LOBO loans are described by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) [April 2015] Bulletin as “inherently risky” products. 

We note that this is the third time in eight years there have been calls for a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) inquiry into brokers and treasury management advisors (TMAs) to local government, the last occasions being during the 2008/09 Icelandic banking collapse when councils lost £1bn on deposit, and in July 2015 following the Channel 4 Dispatches expose of LOBO loans in “How Councils Blow Your Millions.”

On each occasion, calls for the FSA/ FCA to investigate the conduct of regulated treasury advisory firms it supervises, including Capita and ICAP were ignored, with DCLG accusing the FSA in 2009 of: “deliberate obfuscation [119].”

As councillors, MPs, citizens and civil society organisations, we wish to lend our voice to calls from MPs John Mann and Clive Betts for an inquiry into LOBO loans, and the conflicts of interest between Banks, Brokers, and Advisors who promoted them, by the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) and The FCA, and demand a financial system that operates in the interests of society.

At the heart of this matter is the assertion by regulators, acting under FSMA 2000 that local authorities are “sophisticated” investors, able to transact safely with global investment banks and brokers selling derivatives products, including LOBOs.

A string of municipal swaps and derivatives mis-selling legal cases across Italy, France, Germany, Portugal and Belgium are testament to the fact that local authorities were not in a position to safely use complex products like derivatives, and could not be accurately described as “sophisticated” investors with full understanding of derivatives risks.

Banks pitched highly complex, opaque and risky products such as ‘inverse floaters’ and ‘range LOBOs’ which were inappropriate for the needs of local authorities. In the case of Newham council, this has had a significant adverse financial impact on its position. 

The Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry into local government bank loans heard testimony from Abhishek Sachdev (CEO Vedanta Hedging) and Rob Carver (a former LOBO loan trader with Barclays) that even FTSE 200 Treasurers would be unable to accurately price LOBO loans. 

Unlike professional investors such as hedge funds, local authorities did not understand the inherent risks with LOBO loans, being reliant upon external treasury management advisers (TMAs) – who received undeclared income streams in the form of commissions from brokers when councils borrowed from banks.

Brokers held themselves out as offering best execution services for local authorities and prior to 2009, failed to disclose relationships with treasury advisers and banks.

It should be remembered that local authority finance is entirely unregulated, and that ultimately, it is local taxpayers picking up the tab when councils are mis-sold risky financial products. 

With the closure of the Local Government Audit Commission in 2015, severe cuts to town hall budgets since 2010, and plans outlined in the Devolution for Cities agenda granting additional financial powers to local authorities, it has never been more important to stamp out market abuse along the financial advisory chain to town halls.

CIPFA and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) both assert that it should be the FCA, not councils, which investigate and regulate the conduct of financial consultants and advisors. to councils.

We call upon the Treasury Select Committee to conduct an inquiry, and to ensure the FCA is given appropriate powers/ forced to investigate and regulate the conduct of treasury management advisors (TMAs) and financial consultants to local government.

Pavey throws off his shackles to make frank presentation on HR to Scrutiny Committee

When Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent Council, stood to present the report on the progress of the recommendations made in his review of Brent Human Relations, there were none of the usual officers present at his elbow who normally support lead members at meetings. Noting this Pavey said that the report had been tabled without the final version being given to him for his approval.

He went on to say that  he would not have approved it if he had been given the chance. Parts of the report hinted at complacency and suggested that the mere ticking of boxes had solved problems.

The truth was that the report was only coming to Scrutiny because of failures by the Council based on an ugly Employment Tribunal case (The Davani case LINK)  that the Council lost on grounds of racial discrimination and a failure to stamp out bullying and harassment of staff. There has also been a failure to promote staff from under represented groups into senior management,

He said that his review was set up in the wake of the Employment Tribunal but he had been forbidden from investigating that case.  This had meant when he talked to staff the event that was on everyone's mind and that they were keen to discuss was not on the agenda.  He said that with hindsight he wished he had fought to broaden the terms to enable the review to 'roam freely  to look into the areas that some wanted to keep secret.'

Cllr Stopp asked Pavey what had caused the narrow, restrictive terms of reference. Cllr Pavey was a little thrown by the question and replied that he must pick his words carefully. He said that there was no doubt that the review stemmed from the Tribunal and in hindsight he should have fought harder for the terms of reference to include the Tribunal findings.  He had been forbidden to go into that incident and this affected his review.  The incident had caused a breakdown of trust and it had been hard to gain the trust of council staff  in carrying out the review when the burning issue had not been addressed. Responding to a further question Pavey said that he had tried to widen the terms of reference but had been unsuccessful.

Cllr Mary Daly said that she had recently been approached by a staff member about bullying so the problems remained.  Pavey said that the staff member should use the Council's whistle blowing policy. The Committee discussed concerns about a top down approach where equalities was being led by senior directors so staff may feel uncomfortable in taking up issues from below. Cllr Pavey said it was essential that changes in approach should be led from the top but acknowledged that diktat  as a method would not work.  Networks had been set up to promote 'staff voice'  but he would take back the wider issue to HR.

Committee members were keen that mental health and well-being of staff should be considered and that issues were dealt with before reaching the official complaints or tribunal stage. The Committee neded to lack at how redundancies were affecting BAME workers. There were also issues about how 'burnt out' frontline staff dealt with members of the public. Cllr Pavey suggested that work done with senior staff on unconcious bias should be extended to staff who directly served the public.

A co-opted member of the Committee, Mr Alloysius Frederick, expressed serious concern that a paper had come to the Committee without being signed off by the responsible lead councillor beforehand. This procedure would be expected in any organisation.

Cllr Pavey replied that this was the only time it had happened to him and he had spoken to the CEO about it - it would not happen again. Despite this failure he took full responsibility for the report.

Pavey told the Committee that there was much work still to be done and challenges to overcome. There would be a big role for Scrutiny Committee in the future as well as for the new Strategic Director.

He said that these challenges should not detract from the 'excellent work we were able to achieve within our narrow terms of reference:

'Without question Brent is a fairer, more inclusive, more rewarding employer than when we lost the tribunal which triggered this work.'

Cara Davani with Council Leader Muhammed Butt

NOTE: It is work noting that Michael Pavey was not the only person who was affected by attempts to limit discussion of the Davani case. Philip Grant was particularly active in seeking answers to key questions and was not allowed to raise the issue at a previous Scrutiny Committee LINK

Cllr Pavey's comments are a vindication of Philip Grant's pursuit of openness and transparency on this issues.

Cara Davani left the Council some time after the Tribunal decision and attempts to find out whether she got a pay off from the Council have been unsuccessful. Her deputy Mildred Phillips stepped up to act in the role and was the author of the report to Scrutiny.

Brent Momentum debuts with frank open debate & a little political torsion

Interestingly it was not criticism of his attitude to cuts that made Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt fly into a rage at yesterday's Brent Momentum meeting but a challenge on the implementation of the Prevent Strategy in the borough.

Butt had been asked to make a public statement on Prevent to the people of Brent by Humera Khan of the long-established An Nisa Society.  Butt stood up and visibly shaking, shouted over Humera and jabbed his fingers at her yelling, 'You always do this..'   Eventually, when he had been forced to stop and calm down by the chair of the session, Faduma Hassan, Humera was able to complete her question. She recognised that there were statutory constraints on the Council about their duty to implement the Strategy but wanted a clear statement from Butt about its shortcomings. In particular she wanted the Council to commit to tackling Islamophobia and inequalities that impacted on the Muslim community.

Cllr Butt said that he had been critical of Prevent in a Channel 4 programme but that the Council was taking a different approach to the Strategy by working with communities and placing it in a broader safeguarding context which would not stigmatise the Muslim community. He would be speaking in Cambridge about his criticisms of the Strategy. He confirmed  'I don't like Prevent' and thought the current strategy was 'pernicious'.

Humera said that she wanted a statement made to the community in Brent - not in Cambridge or on Channel 4. The question of which community groups Brent Council was engaging with and how they had been selected remained in the air.

On the issue of cuts Michael Calderbank called on Cllr Butt to show more political  leadership, 'all we hear from you is managerialism.' Asked to join with other councils in funding an attempt to get a Judicial Review of the 'Shaping a Healthier Future' proposals on local health services, based on the findings of the Mansfield Report, Butt would make no commitment pending legal advice.

The day had begun with an emollient address by Cllr Michael Pavey where he admitted that the Council had made mistakes in the way they engaged with people and presented cuts. The library closures and Stonebridge Adventure Playground were such cases. He claimed that having a Labour Council had lessened the impact of austerity on local people.  He wanted to move away from a 'stale debate' with the left over not implementing cuts, needs budgets etc and work with them in challenging austerity and  government cuts to local authority funding.  He cited 'Red Lines' LINK where Labour councillors were standing up to defend Londoners.  He wanted to work with council trade unions on these issues.

In earlier commentary I had raised the issue of inviting Butt and Pavey to a 'Brent Uncut' event when they had implemented cuts in Brent but organisers justified on the basis that it would open the dialogue between the community and Labour councils that Jeremy Corbyn had advocated. This was bound to result in some friction but there was much constructive work, especially in the workshops on issues such as health, education, welfare, environment and housing where I hope some of the proposals will be published by Brent Momentum. Framed as helping to build a 'Better Brent' (an old slogan) they could produce a unity beyond the normal activists.

Kilburn Labour Party member and Brent TUC Secretary Pete Firmin said in his introduction that we all know what the government is doing but the question for the day was how to oppose these measures and in some cases, work from against them from within. It was no use just shouting at councillors for implementing cuts but adopting alternative policies, learning from other councils, (such as Islington on housing) and admitting that the council had failed to win the hearts and minds of local people.

A number of themes emerged from the workshops which didn't always avoid reiterating the awful things that are going on rather than suggesting ways to oppose and transform:

• councillors managing cuts rather than adopting a political response
• privatisation in health, education and council services
• council's attitude to free schools & academies when they are not allowed to build new schools
• protecting paid jobs  but at the same time need volunteers to keep services going
• need to train volunteers in order to recognise that jobs can't be done by just anyone
• unpicking language around benefits so as not to reinforce stereotypes
• address the issue of digital inclusion by improving Council and CCG websites and catering for those without access
• use Goverment Accessible Information Standard  in publications and communications
• in council reports include the impact of policies on the 30,000 people with disabilities alongside that on other groups
• the need for some form of Basic Income
• proactive measures council could take on environment including insulation, microgeneration, climate jobs 
• school funding changes impact on local authority education services including school improvement and special educational needs
• need for key worker housing if we are to stem loss of teachers, nurses and other public service workers
• challenge developers on amount of affordable social  housing in regeneration schemes
• support community unionism on the model of the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group
• develop a culture of passion to help service users in council  officers when they are bound by an inflexible scripted response
• linked with that build links between councillors, activists and the community for a united response to government policies

About 40 people attended the conference including in addition to Cllrs Butt and Pavey, Cllr Perrin and Southwood. Cllr Margaret McLennan, lead member for Housing and Development, was due to take part in the housing workshop but did not turn up.

Brent Uncut: Fighting austerity for a better borough - Saturday

Readers may be surprised to see  Cllrs Butt and Pavey on a flyer about fighting austerity when they have been giving into it and implementing cuts, but I am assured by an organiser that this meeting is  not about giving Butt and Pavey a 'free pass' but  '..about a critical dialogue with them, taking the Corbyn letter at its word when it asked them to work with community groups and unions to build up a campaign against Tory austerity and its impact locally.'

We shall see.

What is to be done about Brent Council's Tory imposed cuts?

There was a wide ranging and amicable discussion at tonight's Brent Fighback meeting on local government cuts.

The meeting agreed that there should be continued principled opposition to the council implementing government cuts. 

There were different views points on the possible 4% Council Tax rise (2% to protect adult social care and 2% to protect some (but not all) vital services).

One view was that the proposed rise still accommodated cuts through making the poor pay more. Another was that support among some in the Labour Group for a rise was a significant shift from last year when Cllr Duffy’s call for a 2% rise was strongly opposed - that shift should be supported. This was qualified by a demand (also in the Scrutiny Budget Panel report) that any rise should be accompanied by changes in Council Tax Benefit to protect the most vulnerable from the increase. 

Information is needed on how much would be raised by the increase (The Scrutiny Budget Panel said £12m by 2018/19) and what that could achieve in terms of protecting services. Also what changes in Council Tax Benefit would be needed to offset the imapct of the Council Tax rise for the most vulnerable?

There was also discussion on the possibility of using some of the council’s reserves to avoid cuts. This was something that Cllr Michael Pavey promised to review at the Scrutiny Committee. In the past the Audit Commission ruled that Brent did not have sufficient reserves and more has been added over the last 2-3 years.

Although the visit of Muhammed Butt and Michael Pavey to government ministers to argue that the cuts to Brent’s budget were unfair was welcome, there needed to be much more mobilisation of the public and joint work with other councils to mount a national campaign against the cuts.

 Cllr Butt reports back on his meeting with ministers

Brent Fightback would be keen to help campaigns of organisations or services which will be hit by the next round of cuts. Although ultimately unsuccessful the Stonebridge Adventure Playground campaign had a big impact in terms of public knowledge of how the community was affected by cuts.

There is a Budget Consultation Meeting at Brent Civic Cente tomorrow (Wednesday) at 7pm where these issues can be raised.

Pavey says time has come to raise Brent Council Tax - potentially by 4%

Responding to the Scrutiny Budget Panel's report this evening, Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader and lead for finance, said because of the substantial amount that could be raised and its potential impact on services, that he now supported a rise in Council Tax.

The 1% freeze grant has been abolished which the Council would have lost previously if it raised the Council Tax. The 2% ring-fenced adult social care rise along with 2% to maintain services would raise 4 times the freeze granr.
 
He said his personal view was that despite Council Tax being unfair and out-dated he was confident that Brent Council could ask residents to pay more because they could honestly tell them it would save services.

Any proposal to raise Council Tax would have to be agreed by Cabinet before being put to Full Council in February.

Cllr Pavey said he was looking forward to hearing the views of the public at the Brent Connects meetings which are coming up in the next few weeks.

While Pavey was speaking at the Committee Cllr Butt rushed from the public gallery to sit beside him. It was unclear whether this was to express solidarity, give guidance or some other reason.

During the discussion Michael Pavey apologised for unintentionally not including the Scrutiny Committee in the published budget timeline and agreed that there should be  earlier involvement. He rejected claims that the budget lacked coherence and vision.

He said that there had been a failure of entrepenuership by the council which included marketing of the Civic Centre. the aim was to find ways that services could produce income or become self-financing.  The Cabinet report shoudl have had more detail of this 'civic enterprise agenda'. Peter Gadson, Operational Director, said that if services currently subject to fees were made more efficient, a larger proportion of the fee would be reatined by the council. It was not necessarily a matter of putting up fees becase a lower fee could increase take up and therefore income.

Cllr Duffy (not a member of the Committee) spoke about the need foo more thorough work to get maximun value for money from procurement and to use the reduced number of staff more efficiently.

Clr Nerva said that every illegally parked car was worth £80 to the council that could be used for community benefit. Improved enforcemment could be self-financing.

Cllr Pavey undertook to look at the question of council reserves, how much was ring-fenced and what was accessible.

Should Brent Council raise Council Tax to protect key services?

That will be one of the key questions asked at Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight when they discuss the report of the Budget Scrutiny Panel. LINK

Last year a move to increase Council Tax by 2% was opposed by the Cabinet but the mood appears to have shifted since then. A 2% rise ring-fenced for Adult Social Care, as set out in the Chacellor's Autumn Statement seems inevitable. Another 2% to preserve vital services for the most vulnerable will be more controversial and debate is likely to centre around whether residents now having to pay a portion of Council tax, despite being poor, can be protected by revisions to the Council Tax Support scheme.

Much will depend on the view of Cllr Michael Pavey, deputy leader, who leads on the budget. Officers have repeatedly warned about the erosion of the Council Tax base although that has been offset to some extent by new housing coming on stream with an increased number of residents paying the tax and better collection rates.

The meeting is at 7pm tonight at the Brent Civic Centre and the public may attend.

The budgetr proposals will be discussed at Brent Connects meetings over the next few weeks:

 Brent Fightback will be holding an open meeting to discuss the options open to councils in the face of the devastating cuts they are being asked to make. It takes place at Brent Trades Hall on Wednesday January 13th at 7.30pm.

What will McDonnell say about Brent Council cuts on Sunday?

From the current Kilburn Times

On Sunday at 1pm  John McDonnell MP, the anti-austerity Shadow Chancellor, will hold a street meeting at the Jubilee Clock in Harlesden with Labour councillors and activists before they go off to canvas for the Labour candidate in the Kensal Green by-election. (Kensal Green ward covers a large part of Harlesden)

On Monday at 7pm Brent's Labour Cabinet will be setting in motion consultation on the latest round of cuts and increased charges and fees as they implement the Conservative's austerity agenda.

Rather than challenging the cuts agenda they will be operating a bidding war where supporters of different services compete with each other for survival - rather than unity against the Tories attack on local government this will be divisive. According to Michael Pavey's comment it could be those with the loudest voice who will win out : 'If the public is up in arms about any one of these issues we will talk it through and if necessary we will change it.' On the surface this sounds reasonable but leaves those who are most vulnerable and lack a voice at a disadvantage.

There appears to be little appetite for a change of policy in the Labour Group. There are only one or two who have lined up with the recently formed Brent Momentum  LINK while others have joined the anti-Corbyn Labour International. Brent Momentum is urging its members to attend Sunday's event and canvas for the Labour candidate but the effect will be to elect a 55th Labour councillor (out of a total council of 63) who will vote for cuts. If he wins they will hail this as a victory for Corbyn's Labour - all rather contradictory.

This is why the election of Jafar Hassan as a single Green councillor pledged to oppose cuts and hold the dominant Labour group to account would be a much better outcome in Kensal Green.

BRENT’S INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES (Don’t mention a ’C’ word unless you’re asking for a cheese sandwich)

Guest blog by Peter Murry
 

As a disabled Brent resident, I was invited  to the International Day For People With Disabilities event held in Brent Civic Centre on 3^rd December 2015. Attending this event was my second visit to the Civic Centre since its opening in June 2013.

The event gave certain Brent Councillors, (Cllrs Butt, Hirani & Pavey), an opportunity to grandstand Brent Council’s achievements for People with Disabilities. Perhaps because many in the audience may not have understood some of the speeches, or were attending as paid carers for other audience members, the councillors were able to express their concerns for People with Disabilities without anyone asking any awkward questions, like:

·       How will the London Borough of Brent implement central government austerity policies without harming People With Disabilities or other vulnerable Brent residents?

Or

·       Will Brent Council make any effective attempt to resist these central government austerity policies or even visibly protest against them, in view of the fact that these policies are now forcing even more severe cuts than those that Brent has already carried out?

We heard a lot about ongoing improvements to Brent Civic Centre, which was apparently still the ‘greenest public sector building in Europe’. It is indeed an impressive edifice, but I suspect, most Brent residents use it even less frequently than I have; still it’s nice to think about the council workers having such a wonderful warm spacious atrium to sit and eat their lunches in, instead of being outside on cold, wet, winter streets.

The various stalls from a variety of organisations at the PwD event were quite useful although the display table shared by Unison and the GMB, didn’t seem to have many anti-cuts leaflets on it.

The Choir and Dance group, both featuring performers with disabilities, were good and it’s nice for a diabetic like me to get a few sweet biscuits  once in a while; however once I’d had my free cheese sandwich lunch, I’d had enough, so I never found out if the elephant in the Civic Centre trumpeted and stomped on Councillor Pavey during his closing address

Copland/Elvin: Onward and Upward?

Guest blog from  local school chaplain Elvin Bishop

The benefits of Tory education policy (ably assisted by Cllrs Pavey and Butt) are taking time to become apparent at one local school, as these figures appear to show:

2012: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                 40%

2013: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                  43%

2014: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                  46%

September2014 and Forced Academisation takes place against the wishes of parents, students and staff but backed by Michaels Gove and Pavey and Leader Mo Butt. Copland becomes Ark Elvin Academy.

2015: Copland 5 A*-C GCSEs including English and Maths                    34%*

*figure from Ark Elvin website

Still, as Jose Mourinho probably  said to Roman Abramovich on Sunday, ‘early days’.

Cabinet warned over 'dealing with a convicted fraudster' in Bridge Park development

Cllr Dan Filson, Chair of Scrutiny,  made a dramatic intervention in the discussion of the Bridge Park redevelopment at last night's Cabinet meeting.

He drew attention to a paragraph in the report about the Council's development partners:

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

 Filson pointed out that the companies were not registered at Companies House but instead were overseas registered, a Luxembourg Holding Company and the British Virgin islands. This meant that the usual financial checks could not be carried out.

The founder and chairman of General Mediterranean Holdings is Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi. In 2003 LINK Auchi was convicted of fraud following his involvement in a $504 million corruption scandal centred on the French oil company Elf Aquitaine which Wikipedia says was described as 'the biggest political and corporate sleaze scandal to hit a western democracy since the second world war.'

Auchi was given a $2.8 million fine and a 15 month suspended jail sentence. Filson warned that the council is dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

Earlier Philip Grant had posted this comment on an earlier blog LINK:

As Martin suggests, this article did attract my interest.

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).

I have written before about Andy Donald's philosophy LINK but it is worth bearing in mind this particular comment of his:

The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers.

Andy Donald was unwell yesterday but the decision makers, the Cabinet, went ahead and approved the Bridge Park report.

I had pointed out in my earlier posting that the Officer's report made the Appendix on the sliding scale of affordable housing restricted so that the public are unable to see it. Cllr Margaret McClennan said that the developers had offered 10%  (50 homess out of the 500 planned) against the Council's target of 50%. She said that Brent Council wanted at least 30%. Cllr Pavey said the despite the gain of a leisure centre and swimming pool officers should be pushing for a greater amount of affordable housing.

Cllr Mashari said that the Cabinet should not get so caught up in the detail of affordable housing that 'we forget the marvellous facility that Brent would get through the development.'

Questioned about the fear that the housing would be sold abroad as had  happened at the Willesden Green Library development Cllr McClennan said that the Council would demand that the homes be first marketed locally.

The Recommendations adopted by the Cabinet 'delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth (Andy Donald) in consulation with the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Operarating Officer to enter into negotiations, finalise and enter into a land sale agreement with General Meditteranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc.'

Asked about how any issues that might arise from the negotiations and financial checks would be dealt with the Cabinet were told that the lead member, Margaret McClennan, would be consulted.

The fear that several members of the public were left with was that, given the overseas status of the companies involved,  Brent might be able to do little to persuade them on the proportion of affordable housing and marketing front.

Brent Equalities Committee: Michael Pavey responds to Philip Grant's Open Letter

Last week, Martin published as a “guest blog” an open letter which I had sent to the members of Brent Council’s new Equalities Committee, ahead of their meeting on 13 July. LINK  

The day after their meeting, the chair of that committee, Cllr. Michael Pavey, wrote to me in reply to my open letter. With his permission, I am setting out the main text of his reply, so that “Wembley Matters” readers can consider the points he has made, as part of a balanced discussion:-

‘The Committee met for the first time last night and as part of our discussions on the implementation of my Review, we decided to remove the "success criteria" relating to successfully defended ETs. We opted to remove the clause entirely, rather than to replace it. This was a unanimous decision. 

Your suggestion that the Council withdraw from the Race for Opportunity awards was not raised. 

My understanding is that this particular award relates to the collection of equalities data. Whatever your view of the Council's current performance, the Committee will only be able to drive up standards by referring to reliable and challenging data. 

The Council Equalities Team have put a tremendous amount of work into improving internal data collection and analysis. I have no problem with this work being recognised through nomination for an award. 

I don't feel that objecting to Council Officers receiving legitimate praise for their hard work is the right way to address ongoing grievances about an Employment Tribunal. The Officers who put in the hard work to collect this data had nothing at all to do with that Tribunal. 

I think it would be far more constructive for us to acknowledge the good work of those particular Officers and focus on using this data to improve the Council's performance on Equalities issues, as per my Review. The new Committee has an important role to play in this and we made an encouraging start last night, challenging Officers in a constructive but robust way.’ 

I believe I am on record as saying this before, but it is worth repeating, that I welcome Michael Pavey’s openness in actually replying to serious points put to him (unlike his colleague, the Leader of the Council). We do not agree on everything, but I have confirmed to Cllr. Pavey that I know there are many officers at the Council who do an excellent job (even though they have been let down by some very senior ones!). My open letter was not all criticism, but in reply to Cllr. Pavey’s response above, I have reminded him that its key message was that the Equalites Committee (and Brent Council generally) needs to acknowledge and deal with the “negatives”, as well as celebrating the “positives”.

Philip Grant