Duffy wins place on Scrutiny Committee

Cllr John Duffy has won a place on Brent Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee after a surprise vote in the Labour Group.  I understand that he defeated Cllr Roxanne Mashari, who recently resigned from the Cabinet, by 16 votes to 12.

The vote took place after the Labour Group refused to endorse a move by the leadership to have the nomination ruled out of order on the grounds that it had been received late.

In an email to members of the Labour Group Cllr Duffy had said that he was standing because it was important that the Scrutiny Committee had independent minded people who would be proactive in ensuring that the Cabinet be called to account.  They should be able to analyse information and costings and have some understanding of local government finance.

He claimed that the Committee needed to be bolder and more inquisitive and less concerned about procedures and more willing to take on board what those making representations to it were saying. .

Cllr Duffy was not at the meeting himself as he was delayed by the tube strike.

The Labour Group decision appears to represent a loosening of Muhammed Butt's grip on Labour councillors and a recognition that many difficult and controversial decisions are being made without the necessary discussion and scrutiny.

Zadie Smith speaks our for South Kilburn's Granville and Carlton Centres

Author Zadie Smith, whose novels White Teeth and NW show how well she knows the needs of the local community, spoke in support of the threatened South Kilburn's Granville and Carlton Centres last night.

Smith read extracts from an essay she has written about the defence of local services to an audience of more than 100 people.

Brent Scrutiny Committee has called in the plans for examination at their meeting on Wednesday November 30th, 7pm at Brent Civic Centre. LINK

Scrutiny over-ruled on Housing Management decision

In an unusual move Brent Council officers have ruled that a decision must be made by Cabinet on the controversial proposals for the future of Brent Housing Management LINK despite the proposals not being included in the Council's Forward Plan and the subsequent recommendations of Scrutiny Committee.

This is a copy of the Notice to the Chair of Scrutiny (Community and Wellbeing):

How the reduced Overall Benefit Cap will impact on Brent residents

A report going to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee tomorrow demonstrates how the lowering of the Overall Benefit Cap (OBC) to £23,000 will impact on residents, with a particularly severe impact on single parents and single people.

According to the report the impact  of the cap so far

...in Brent has been lower than initially anticipated, although it has still had significant impacts. Among these, the relocation of families outside of Brent has been high profile, but affects only a minority of OBC cases (22 in 2015/16); there are generally broader factors including the wider welfare reforms (especially Local Housing Allowance caps) and the lack of affordable accommodation in Brent which have impacted on homelessness and the need to rehouse families outside the borough; OBC itself has played a relatively small part in this and the majority of resolved cases have been through employment.

  Lone parents represented over half (53%) of the cases capped and households with dependants accounted for over 77% of all cases. Single claimants were less likely to be capped as they were likely to be living in smaller properties and so entitled to less benefit. In terms of ethnicity, claimants from the black ethnic group were disproportionately impacted by the OBC, relative to their proportion of the overall Housing Benefit  caseload.

  The council currently has just under 3,000 households living in temporary accommodation, the fourth highest in the country, and including over 5,000 children. This includes the use of expensive and unsuitable Bed & Breakfast accommodation, hostel accommodation with shared facilities, and other nightly paid accommodation which is not fully covered by Housing Benefit and is subsidised by the Council at an unsustainable cost.

  Efforts to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation are made more difficult by the lack of social housing lets and the difficulty and expense of securing affordable private rented sector accommodation at LHA level rents.

  The effect of austerity and public sector cuts generally means that the Council is now less able to take an interventionist approach with affected claimants and the new Welfare Reform Strategy reflects a greater need to work together with partners, with the Council fulfilling more of a strategic and co-ordinating role, though there will still be intervention on a targeted basis towards the most vulnerable claimants; however, there will be a greater expectation on non- vulnerable claimants to take responsibility for their own outcomes (with appropriate signposting). [my emphasis] Finally the Council’s limited discretionary funding will have to stretch further and therefore provide less of a safety net for residents in future

The reduced cap will exacerbate an already difficult situation:

However, the planned lowering of the Cap from Autumn 2016 will present greater challenges to a larger number of claimants; in particular single people will be impacted who will generally not be statutorily homeless if they present to the Council, so there is potential for increased sofa-surfing, street sleeping, mental health and related social issues. The lowering of the cap elsewhere in the country will even make relocating out of London a less viable option. 


A comparison of the two charts below demonstrates the impact:

Click on charts to enlarge

 The table below shows the new limits per week.  Greater London rates apply in Brent.

The table below shows the Council's Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) in 2015-16

 

The Council's DHP budget has been reduced from £4.8m in 2013-14 in 2013-14 to £2.6m in 2015-16 .

The full report can be found HERE

Brent out-sourced Dumping & Litter Patrols called-in for Scrutiny and some vital questions

Bath time at Randall Avenue, NW2

The Scrutiny Committee will consider the proposal for uniformed patrols to provide on the spot fines for environmental offences such as litter, dog fouling, fly-tipping, spitting, fly posting and graffiti at problem areas across Brent at its April 5^th meeting.

Although  the 12 month contract to  Kingdom Security was approved by Cabinet the proposal has come in for criticism on several grounds, the most important of which are:

·      The terms, pay and conditions of the people who will work on patrols, and their relationships to officers working on enforcement currently working in the Council
·      The lack of consideration of an in-house option
·      The process by which Kingdom was chosen as a partner for the trial period
·      Some of the costings contained in the report 

  The Kingdom Security Enforcement Officers would be paid £9.40 per hours for a 40 hour week which would include weekend and evening work. Working pay out at 52 weeks a year this comes to £19,552 for each operative plus extra if one is a foreman. The current Council Waste Enforcement Officers employed by the Council are on  £31,360-£33,660 a year. The former, despite being on slightly above the London Living Wage of £9.40 an hour, will be worse off than similar employees whose jobs have been cut , as well as well below  the rate (and working conditions etc) of the Council’s own employees.

The Council Officers to justify this on the grounds that the roles are different:

The Waste Enforcement roles attract a salary of Pay Scale PO1 (currently £31,368- £33,660); however, these directly employed officers undertake very different work. They use investigatory powers to administer enforcement cases through the formal process right up to and including representing the council in court, which accounts for the higher job evaluation outcome. 
The work that Kingdom is being asked to do is very much intended to complement and not replace the work of the existing in house team, who do not have the capacity, and are not equipped to carry out pro-active litter enforcement patrols. 


The Officers’  Report admits that no job evaluation has been done for the out-sourced workers so it is hard to see how a comparison can be made.

The failure to consider an in-house option is justified on the grounds that this is a 12 month pilot project and has less risk attached than if the operatives were directly employed by the Council.  They also rely on the claimed  positive experience of Ealing Council with Kingdom. 

However, this does not directly answer the general local government principle, which the Council enforces on schools for example, that three bids should be sought for contracts. This has not been done by the Council which instead went straight to Kingdom.

The costings assume the employment of 4 operatives issuing  5 Fixed Penalty Notices each per day for which the Council will pay Kingdon £46 per Notice.  Thus, as the FPNs will be for £80 each the sum is not equally shared between the Council and Kingdom. On the basis of 5,200 FPNs annually this gives Kingdom an income of £239,200. Equivalent to £60,000 per operative before wages and other costs - not a bad return. However, an additional report to Scrutiny Committee suggests that there will also be a supervisor and admin staff.

This is not the end of the matter however as it is assumed, based on the Ealing experience, that only 70% of the fines will be paid. Kingdom will receive £46 for 100% of the Notices but Brent Council £34 for only 70% pf them.  This gives a total income of 3,460 Notices (70% of total) x £80=£291,200.

Once Kingdom has been paid its £239,200 this leaves Brent with £52,000.

Scrutiny will need to consider whether this represents Best Value for residents, the issue of what will be done to recover the 30% of unpaid Notices, and whether an in-house solution will be considered after the 12 month pilot period and indeed what Kingdom's reaction will be to a move to in-house if they have successfully delivered the contract.

Scrutiny may also be interested in looking at the wider costs in the contract for Brent Council in terms of the support they are offering which presumably will come out f the £52,000, as well as what appears to be additional Kingdom staff (admin support and senior supervisory officer):
 

The typical responsibilities to be undertaken by both the council and by the contractor are set out below:


Brent:
·      Provide authorised officer identity cards to all Enforcement Officers working to the direction of Brent. 

·      Provide stationery and meet postage costs in respect of the service. 

·      Arrange for Enforcement Officers to be authorised to issue FPNs on behalf of 
Brent. 

·      Provide guidance as to areas to be patrolled and times of patrols. 

·      Provide workstations for administrative officers employed by the contractor 
(essentially, the Council will be required to provide an administrative base for Kingdom’s operatives at the Civic Centre. Such staff will attend on an ad-hoc basis, and such arrangements will be facilitated locally within the Environmental Services Department). Kingdom will be required to sign a licence covering any such ad hoc occupation as set out in paragraph 8.7. 

·      Manage and administer the appeals process


Contractor:
·      Issue FPNs to anyone caught committing an environmental offence. 

·      Provide fully trained, to Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) standard, 
Enforcement Officers, admin support and a senior officer for supervision. 

·      Provide uniform agreeable to Brent. 

·      Ensure Enforcement Officers carry out enquiries to ensure accurate identity 
details have been obtained from offenders before issue of FPNs. 

·      Provide statistical information and other reports, including equality monitoring.  
 Not issue an FPN to a person under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering 
      mental ill health
In addition Brent Council is considering extending the contract. The viability of this seems doubtful given the amount of littering and fly-tipping in the borough:

Once established- and if successful, the scope of the contract may be expanded during the course of the pilot to incorporate other offences, such as:
·      Graffiti and Flyposting – Section 43 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 

·      Dog Fouling – Section 3 Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1990 

·      Exposing vehicles for sale on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods 
and Environment Act 2005
·      Carrying out restricted works on a motor vehicle on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
The Officer's report goes further to suggest other 'Added Value' benefits:
In addition to on-street enforcement, the contractor is also able to provide the following: 
·      ‘No cost’ provision of back office support and administration 

·      Trade waste and residential waste investigations 

·      Dealing with juvenile offenders and education through schools. 

·      Delivering a bolt on service aimed at investigating failures to recycle domestic 
waste correctly. 

·      Positive contribution to the reduction of street litter by intelligence-led patrols 

·      Working with the police to target other types of antisocial behaviour. 


The four enforcement officers (plus or including a senior officer) and admin support staff look as if they will be very busy.

Scrutinising Brent Council' new scrutiny arrangements

The Wembley Matters reader who scrutinised Brent Council's new scrutiny arrangements in 2014 LINK  looks at the proposals which were adopted by Full Council yesterday evening in this Guest Blog:

On the positive side, it should be welcome that Brent Council has acknowledged that a single scrutiny committee with a very limited ability to set up Task & Finish Groups to investigate issues in depth has failed to deliver. It would have been more honest, though, if the committee report had not claimed that ‘the disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen’. The fact that Brent Council alone of all the London Boroughs thought it could manage with a single scrutiny committee with a very limited ability to do work outside of committee meetings ought to have been flashing red warning signals from the outset.

The overall objectives set for the new system are fine, but whether the new arrangements will be able to deliver those objectives is questionable. The proposals are still very committee-oriented ─ but experience over the years from elsewhere shows that Members develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues (one of the stated key objectives) best through in-depth Task and Finish Working Groups. There is no indication that more officer time will made available to resource such Working Groups.

More alarmingly, the report says that “Strategic and Operational Directors would still be expected to take a central role in developing the work programme”. This is contrary to the standard good practice of scrutiny being a Member-led function. It is Members who should be taking the central role in developing the work programme, while calling on and using the advice of, amongst others, strategic and operational directors. The danger here is Members are channelled to look at only what Directors are comfortable with Members examining, rather than what really needs a spotlight being shone on it.

Two final points: why is a review of scrutiny arrangements concerning

strategic matters such as budget setting and policy formation delayed until later in the year? And there is no stated commitment to review how the new system is working so that changes might be made to correct any imbalances or deficiencies in its functioning.

Marks out of 10: five.

Brent Council abolishes fly-tipping

Mattresses on the corner of Chapter Road and Deacon Road earlier this week

The Brent Council Cabinet last night agreed to change the term 'fly-tipping' to 'illegal rubbish dumping' . Arguing for the change Cllr Sam Stopp, who chaired the Scrutiny Committeee Task Group on fly-tipping, said that many people did not understand the term 'fly-tipping' and in a borough with many people who were not fluent in English it was important that the terminology should be understand - he was not expecting other London boroughs to adopt the usage.

The emphasis on 'illegal' was welcomed by other Cabinet members. Other recommendations adopted included appointing 'Community Guardians' who would tackle illegal dumping in their areas and have a profile on the Council's web page, a Brent Against Rubbish Dumping Charter which businesses, landlords, estate and letting agents and schools would be encouraged to sign up to and display publicly, and the soft relaunch of the Cleaner Brent App (see side panel).

There was a particular emphasis on co-operation from landlords and Cllr Margaret McLennan said she would like to see the Landlord Licensing Scheme, presently operating in three wards, extended to the whole of Brent.

Cllr Stopp said 80% of his case work was illegal rubbish dumping but he also claimed that Brent wasn't the worse borough in London as sometimes portrayed as it came about half-way in the London Boroughs league table.

Derivation of the term fly-tipping

On the fly meant to move or do something in a hurry. so tipping on the fly, so you don't get caught.

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.

Is Brent Green Bin Tax a success?

Brent Scrutiny Committee will tonight discuss a report on the charge for Green Bin collections. In this guest blog Rik Smith considers the claims made in the report.
 

Since March 2015, Brent council introduced a £40 charge for households to have “green waste” collected regularly (ish) - before this point, most households had a green wheely bin which was collected weekly.

The Brent Scrutiny Committee agreed to review the impact of the changes to the “Garden Waste Service” (or known as the Green Bin tax by most residents) after 9 months of operation.

The green bin tax was anticipated to achieve the following outcomes:

A.    Deliver £378,000 financial savings

B.    Improve and extend the council’s recycling offer

C.    Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

D.    Better comply with the national waste hierarchy

It would be reasonable to expect cover these issues. The report can be found HERE

Overall, it’s not exactly the next PD James novel, but it does contain a significant amount of back slapping and a modest amount of retrospective learning - from the operational difficulty in dealing with ~20,000 requests to “opt in” and pay £40 for the waste collections.

In summary:

●      A) was over achieved due to greater than anticipated sign up

●      B) Brent will suggest that weekly blue bin (dry recycling) addresses this

●      C) not clear – as I will explain below.

●      D) dependent upon the outcome of C

Detail 

Deliver £378,000 financial savings

Brent estimated that 17,000  (15%) of households would sign up to the green bin tax, in reality, 20,000  (18%) signed up. This lead to the council receiving £480,000, a £3 profit for each household that signed up over and above the original target This is a modest surplus per additional household, but may also explain why the coucil are already suggesting that the green bin tax won’t increase next year - or suggest that their poor estimations led to them overcharging for the service. Another interpretation is of course that Brent is getting shafted by Veolia.

I say poor estimation because the sign up was 3,000 more than the 17,000 estimated, that’s a 17%  forecast error. It’s in the councils interest to understate the forecast for the following reasons. Low forecast leads to:

●      “higher than expected uptake” headlines, helping spin the introduction of the green bin tax in  a positive light

●      Bonus extra cash if forecast is exceeded because the cost per household is set to recover costs over a smaller number

●      Low probability of making a loss on the new scheme

Reduce the amount of waste generated overall

This is where spin on the green bin tax starts to wear a bit thin. It’s also worth remembering that at the same time as the green bin tax was introduced, we moved to weekly blue bin collections.

First a rather odd assertion, that moving from collecting the blue top bins (dry recycling) bins from every 2 weeks, to weekly would have zero impact - thoroughly implausible!

"It was also anticipated that the changes would have no significant impact on the council’s recycling rate. This was because it was predicted that the amount of dry recycling collected by the weekly service would remain the same”

I know before weekly blue bin collections i was regularly faced with an overflowing blue bin, so some residual cans or boxes went into the grey bin. If my experience is partially replicated across some of the 110,000 households then from April 2015 the council should expect grey bin (residual waste) volumes to FALL and blue bin (dry recycling) volumes to INCREASE - keep this in mind for later.

“whilst the amount of collected organic waste would reduce, it would be mainly displaced to home composting or to the council’s Recycling Centre at Abbey Road”

The rate of “organic waste” collected from households and recycling centres has fallen by 3,248 tonnes between April and October. This is equivalent to 72 kgs of organic waste for each of the 45,000 green bins that the council removed from residents. i’d estimate that to be 2, maybe 3 wheely bins FULL of grass or hedge trimmings. Composting this amount of green waste would require more than just a garden Dalek composting thing, and will soon mount up.

So what’s happening to this stuff if it’s not being collected? Yes some is probably being composted at home, but I’d argue the rest is going to landfill. However, the scrutiny report appears to ignore / gloss over this waste stream. The amount that goes to landfill is costing the council £82.60 for every tonne - this cost is glossed over and lost (and probably ignored) in the opaque mystery benefits stated earlier.

Furthermore, the report states

“... the service changes appear to have had a positive impact on the borough’s recycling rate, and have had no noticeable impact on residual waste (grey bin) tonnages”

The report appears to come to this conclusion with some very simplistic, and rather misleading graph below.

The blue bars are 2014, red bars 2015. The green Bin Tax was introduced on 31st March 2015 - so the very end of Q1.

The graph shows that Q2 2015 grey bin tonnages were more than in 2014 and that they increased by a greater amount between Q1 and Q2 in 2015 than they did in 2014. so I’d argue that there was an impact.

The GLARING omission is of course, Q3 and  Q4 2015 data. as a reminder Q2 is April to June and Q3 is July to September - arguably the time when gardeners would expect to cut the grass, prune hedges, weeding, and general maintenance in the garden during the summer. The exclusion of Q3 data in a report written to cover the 9 months from March is incompetent, but at worse it’s deliberately misleading. By the time the report was published, most of Q4 should have passed, allowing the council to make a reasonable estimate of Q4 volumes.

One data point is nowhere near enough data to draw any conclusions or make any decisions; instead more data should be presented.

Has Brent reduced the amount of waste generated overall? Probably, but only because some people will compost some of the waste themselves, even if all other green waste goes into the grey bin.

Better comply with the national waste hierarchy and does it now comply better with the national waste hierarchy?

Source LINK

Effecitvely, the idea is to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (then dump the rest) - in the process produce high quality (pure) recyclable material, and the smallest volume of landfill.

This is supported by the “landfill Tax” which is currently £82.60 and payable by councils and commercial producers of landfill waste.

The datum (singular data point) shows an increase in the amount of grey bin waste, and hides the impact in Q3 and Q4. it also hides the likely beneficial impact of the weekly blue bin collections and the likely replacement / uplift volume of green waste being diverted to landfill.

The diversion to landfill would be contrary to the national waste hierarchy, the fact these two events coincide make it very difficult to unpick the size of the impact of each on landfill waste, we can only look at the net impact.

in conclusion, there are a number of unanswered questions

1.     How much residual waste was produced in Q3 and Q4 2015 - and why wasn’t this included in this report?

2.     How much green waste did they estimate would be diverted to landfill by bin tax avoiding residents, and have they budgeted for this?

3.     How much green waste was collected in the 45,000 green bins removed from residents?

4.     Did the council intentionally under-estimate the green bin tax uptake, leading to overcharging residents?

5.     How does Brent’s performance compare to other councils in London and England that have introduced a similar Green Bin Tax?

Matt Kelcher new Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

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

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

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

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

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

This is from Cllr Kelcher's LinkedIn profile:

Wanted: Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scrutiny Committee's role can be found HERE

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

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

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

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

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

Who will be that independent critical voice for Brent residents?

Any nominations?

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

Dan Filson's Twitter profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He will be missed both politically and personally.

Brent Scrutiny Committee agenda and documentation for Wednesday September 9th

These are the main items for the Brent Scrutiny Committee tomorrow.  Wednesday September 9th 7pm Brent Civic Centre

	Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust - Care Quality Commission report and action plan PDF 62 KB               The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has published a report on the quality of services provided by Central North West London NHS Foundation Trust and an action plan has been developed by the Trust to respond to the findings of the inspection. Additional documents: CQC rpt , item 5. PDF 616 KB CNWCQC , item 5. PDF 132 KB
	Scrutiny task group on Access to extended GP services and primary care in Brent PDF 123 KB Brent Clinical Commisisoning Group (CCG) and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust are changing the way healthcare is provided in Brent. The Scrutiny Task Group was established to review the primary care element of Brent CCG’s transformation programme and assess the extent of the changes and investment made in the Brent GP networks and primary care services for the effective implementation of the changes to the acute sector set out within Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF).   Additional documents: Access to Extended GP Services FINAL REPORT , item 6. PDF 1 MB Appendix 1 - Growth rates by Brent GP Practice 2014-2015 , item 6. PDF 52 KB Appendix 2 - Numbers of Patients Registered at a GP Practice , item 6. PDF 50 KB Appendix 3 - Location of services in Brent , item 6. PDF 61 KB Appendix 4 - Healthwatch Brent Report docx , item 6. PDF 386 KB Appendix 5 - Primary Care Workforce Profile Jul15 , item 6. PDF 116 KB
	Terms of reference for task groups on Fly Tipping and CCTV PDF 187 KB These reports set out the proposed scope for the Scrutiny task group on Fly Tipping in Brent on Close Circuit Television (CCTV) in Brent.  Additional documents: CCTV Scope-Terms of Reference , item 7. PDF 161 KB
	Scrutiny forward plan and key comments, recommendations and actions PDF 51 KB Additional documents: Recommendation Summary Table V3 , item 8. PDF 124 KB