Death of former Brent councillor, Pat Harrison

I am sad to report that Pat Harrison, a former Brent Labour councillor and member of the National Union of Teachers has died.

This is the announcement made on the Brent Council website:

Former Preston Ward councillor, Patricia Harrison, passed away at St Luke’s Hospice this morning (25 July) following a period of illness.


Pat was a committed member of the community, serving as a Governor at Preston Park Primary, at the Crest Girls Academy for over 10 years and at Malorees Junior School for 9 years, where she was Chair of Governors.

She was a hard working councillor, spending time visiting all the schools in her ward, attending several community meetings, knocking on doors to hear residents’ concerns and serving as Labour group chair. She was part of several committees including Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny, the Alcohol and Licensing Committee and was a member of the Task Group on Youth Offending.

Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

“Pat was quite simply a one of a kind councillor, selfless in her dedication to public life, generous and compassionate with her time and company; a true stalwart of the Labour movement, the like of which we can be proud to have known, we will cherish her memory indefinitely.”

The Mayor of Brent, Cllr Ernest Ezeajughi, said:

“Brent Council has suffered a great loss today. It was extremely saddening to hear the news of Pat’s death this morning. When I was first elected in 2014, Pat was a welcoming face and worked hard to help the many new Councillors settle in. I offer my deepest sympathy to her friends and family, on behalf of all at Brent Council.”

I have known Pat for many years through our membership of the NUT and involvement in local issuess. Despite latterly being in different political parties we maintained a positive relationship through our mutual interest in education and support for progressive policies. She will be greatly missed.

Councillor claims residents will flytip and report via Cleaner Brent App to avoid £35 bulk collection charge

Councillor John Duffy (Labour, Kilburn) has returned to the theme of alleged waste in Brent Council's waste policy. He has sent the email below to all councillors:

Dear Councillors,

It is obvious to anyone who understand data there is a direct correlation between the failure of the Cabinet to monitor the bulky waste service and ensure the contractor perform to contract specifications and the increase in fly-tipping.

It is unacceptable that the cabinet were aware of the both the rising fly-tipping figures and the rising delays in the bulky waste collection Times and chose to do nothing. It is clear  to me the longer the waiting time for the bulky waste service the more likely the waste is to be dumped on the Street. It is also clear residents are resourceful and using the Cleaner Brent  App to report their own dumped furniture/waste (therefore the rise in reported dumping) therefore getting the waste taken away for nothing in 24 Hrs rather than wait the 8 weeks for a collection.

The likelihood of thing improving once the £35 charge has been introduced is remote and clutching at straws, especially  as residents will soon realise they have already paid for the collection service once in their Council Tax.

It beggars belief that  the cabinet are offering our residents the choice of paying £35 for  bulky collection that will take  up to 5 days too collect or to take the items  outside and use the Brent Appto report the dumping and get it picked up in 24 hrs  for Free. I think many will chose the second option especially when they realise  they have already paid for the service in their council tax.

I believe the service will yield little income and will increase fly-tipping, I have asked the CEO on Monday to suspend the charge and asked for a full evaluation.The CEO has not got back to me, but I understand her and the leader will not suspend the £35 charge and stand by it.

I am having further conversations with residents groups to put together a package of improvements based on environmental needs. Which I will hopefully update you with on Monday.

One of the guiding philosophies in the environment is the polluter pays, however what the cabinet are suggesting is the polluter pays twice.

I still hope the cabinet will see reason and enter into dialogue to improve the environment and suspend the £35 charge, however based on my previous experience that will not happen. 

See below email

Dear CEO and All Councillors ,

I am very concerned about the £35 charge for Bulky Waste as I believe the decision is double charging residents for a service they already pay for and has no financially modelling and is environmentally damaging and is not also sustainable,

The reason I believe this is the case because the charge is being brought in to hide the failings by the cabinet to improve services. The service has gone from a 5 day pick-up in 2014 when I (most of us) was elected to an 8 week delay today. The delay is wholly at the doorstep of the cabinet for believing in the supposed Zero Tolerance policy with Kingdom Security , which squandered resources, while misunderstanding the issues around contract compliance and sustainability.

As well as the wasting of resources on the KS contract one of the only environmentally revenue (we lost over £100k) from the government, that was available to us. The contract had no controls on what services were needed by the council. This allowed the contractor to chose the most lucrative areas for themselves , while avoided the areas of most need like street dumping .This lack of controls and other decisions taken by the cabinet has seen the number of case of fly tipping go up by over 32% from10,000 reported cases  to 17,000 reported cases in the last year alone.

I am therefore amazed with Fly-tipping rising at constant rate over the last 3 years ,the cabinet have decided  the best way to reduce fly-tipping is to introduce a £35 charge for the bulky waste service.

The Service

The truth about the existing service is the Street Cleansing contract is clear . The contract makes the contractor ( Veolia) liable to pick up 17500 bulky waste collections PA 70 pick-ups X 5 Days X 50 Weeks. This year we picked up 17485 collections. Albeit the service clearly running at near capacity, it should not have lead to an eight weeks delay….. It would seem that the residents have already paid for this service via the council Tax for the street cleansing contract and the disposal contract, but the cabinet failure to ensure contract compliance and Fly-tipping as their priorities have let the service fail.

Financial Modelling.

Albeit the service has been paid for once. I believe there is a case for more investment in the environmental services. However I believe the £35 charge will be the highest charge by any licensed waste carrier in Brent and is not competitive and the charge will have a negative affect on the environment .Those who will not pay the £35 will do one of the following.

(i)        Some will taken Civic Amenity centre , some residents will still have a problem transporting larger item,settee,mattresses.

(ii)       Some will use licensed private collectors.

(iii)      Some will use the grey bin ( breaking-up smaller items)

(iv)      Some will use Street dumping

(v)       Some will  use Street Dumping and use the Brent Cleansing Apt to report it.  

(vI)     Some will use unlicensed (White Van Man) waste carriers , much of which will end -up dumped on the street.

Model A 

I understand officers have based their modelling on a take-up from 11000 to 17000 collections and income between 25k to £250 , this seemingly is only based on a £35 per collections price. Their model excludes the collection of bags of rubble and some other items and the figures are very broad.

Whereas it is always hard to a financial breakdown  on what is a new charge, but there are obvious facts ,the service will still operate a substantial discount for residents in receipt of benefits  which can be as high as 20% so allowing for a 15% against what is in the contract 17500- 15% = 14875  paid collection. we also know the higher the cost the bigger the lose of customers.

I believe that a nominal fee of £10 should have little affect on paying on the people who pay now but the £35 will deter many my analyses is based on work I did some years ago on increasing costs for commercial Waste.

£10 cost Customers  lose 10% of customers   =  14131 X   £10 = £141000  (90% of customers including discounted residents)  

£20 cost Customers  lose 45% of customers   =    8181 X   £20 = £164000  (70% of customers including discounted residents)  

£35 cost Customers  lose 75% of customers   =    4462  X  £35 = £156180  (45% of customers including discounted residents)  

You can see from this model the £20 would bring in the most. The £35 is unsustainable because its more expensive that other options, however the £10 is more fair as the residents have already paid for collections in the Veolia contract and already paid for the deposal in the West -Waste levy. I also have more confident in the take -up of the £10 cost as its affordability for most residents.

There also other issues, why are we using 5 items as the cut of point , it is more logical to me to cut it to £10 for 4 items this is based on the bulky collection usually being one or two items (bed and mattress or a fridge-freezer) we could then charge a progression cost for £5 per item after that , believe this would also bring in more income.

Officers and the Cabinet say they oppose a progressive charge because they wish to keep the costing simple. I completely disagree there is nothing simple about doubling the price once you have past a threshold. A progressive charge is both fairer and reflects the true cost.

The Way forward

As you know I am trying to get the support of a number of councillors (hopefully in late November) to call a full council meeting  to discuss sustainable Environment policies around enforcement , recycling and  street cleansing. I will get back to you on those proposal shortly.

In the meantime I am asking the CEO and the Leader of the Council to consider

(1)      Freezing the introduction of the scheme until a full evaluation of the increase in fly-tipping is assessed.

If however you are not willing to freeze the introduction of the charge please answer the questions below as an FOI if you like.

(2)      Explain the price modelling. 

(3)      Explain why,now that we are charging, why are certain wastes prohibited 

(4)      Did  officers explore progressive pricing. 

(5)      How much increased revenue do you expect to received from the the new charge of £35 

(6)      What impact do you think the Charge will have on Fly-tipping. 

I understand under this scheme Brent are going to takeaway old Christmas Trees.I buy my Tree at Ikea for £16 , I feel hearten to know the council will take it away for just…...£35.

I think the cabinet have missed the point.

Last Lib Dem on Brent Council explains why she has become an Independent

Cllr Helen Carr has issued the following statement explaining why she has opted to become an Independent councillor having been elected on a Lib Dem ticket:

Political parties are not reflecting the full range of interests – in fact, some serve to obscure them. The system is degenerating into the preservation of a status quo and a political elite. We all need to put an end to that political and social exclusivenessjavascript:;. The principles on which the parties nominally divide and were formed are increasingly blurred. A group of people, however powerful, without political principles is not a party, but a faction.

Inevitably, the public is furious – interest groups are focused too often on private ends, and we have seen this last six months how popular improvement is lost sight of in particular aggrandisement, and politics and politicians, local, regional and national, are increasingly viewed with contempt. There is a lack of interest in democracy and democratic processes. The public know exactly why they voted for Brexit and it is not because they do not like foreigners, but because they do not like smug, superior and self-regarding career politicians of all persuasion who are contemptuous of the decisions of the people they purport to serve, telling them they did not know what they were voting for.  The public do not like political parties filling the Lords with the unelected whose sole purpose seems to be to sabotage the decisions of elected MPs. They do not like political parties that exploit the ambitions of the young, the fears of the fragile and the vulnerable for votes.

The residents of Brent pay my salary. I look forward as an Independent Councillor to representing and promoting democracy in my ward, and the Borough, in particular to those groups who are an under/ unrepresented socio-economic demographic in the political process because they tend to be excluded and avoid participation. 

I look forward as an Independent Councillor to continuing my human rights work and protection of minority groups, especially important in the current toxic climate because historically, groups I work with such as Gypsies, Irish Travellers and Roma have suffered deprivation, discrimination and in the Roma case especially, persecution and genocide. Those times are upon us again.

This documentary was aired on my birthday the year I was asked to stand as a Councillor. I am involved in similar activities at the moment. It is 10 minutes of your time.

Helga Gladbaum pays tribute to Tayo Oladapo

Helga Gladbaum has asked me to publish this Guest Blog

 

Tribute to the late Cllr. Tayo Oladapo

I am dismayed that the late Councillor Tayo Oladapo, representing the Labour Party in Kilburn ward for six years and who died at an early age at the end of January of this year has still not been given a decent burial nor a mention in any local publication.

I therefore would like to give my own tribute to Tayo. He was elected to be a Labour councillor in 2010 and he was one of much younger councillors at the time.

Tayo was a member of the Education Scrutiny committee which I chaired for a number of years. He always attended the meetings of that committee and would walk over to me at the end of the meetings to talk about education and other matters. He was very respectful and I had great hopes that he would eventually make an important contribution to the work of the Council.

I remember a number of Brent councillors passing away over the years, notably Cllr. Paul Daisley, leader of Brent Council and MP for Brent Central, Cllr. Reg Freeson, MP for Brent Central for many years and Cllr. Tom Taylor, chair of education for a number of years and leader of the Conservative group. They and others were always honoured for their contribution to the political life of Brent.

I fail to understand why these long-standing traditions have been broken in the case of the late Cllr. Tayo Oladapo. I will remember you, Tayo.

Helga Gladbaum

Councillor for Harlesden ward 2010 to 2014

UPDATE: Brent Visitor Parking Debacle - Duffy does it again!

I understand that Cllr John Duffy, who last year claimed he stepped in to stop a flawed policy that would let Veolia pocket large sums in the multi million Public Realm contract, LINK, has now intervened on the Visitor Car Parking  consultation which at the very least would have left Brent Council with egg all over its face.

He was not popular with the Council leadership over the Veolia affair, claiming that they snubbed him for acting on behalf of residents, but this time his colleagues are admitting that he has a point. 

Sources in the Labour Group say  Duffy appealed to Carolyn Downes, Chief Executive, over a report that according to him had flaws that 'are devastating and have damaged our case of proving our competency. The costing variations were all over the place and the report itself quotes the obvious and often contradicts itself.'

The flaws had not been picked up by the Cabinet, other Labour councillors or the Opposition., although Scrutiny Committeee submitted comments. Cllr Duffy told the Labour Group, 'We should be concerned about is how such a bad report was given wings by the Cabinet and was only stopped at the last minute.'

The Cabinet Minutes November 16th 2015 Item 11 can be found HERE
 
Apparently Cllr Southwood, lead member for the Environment, defended the report up to the last minute before being forced to withdraw it.

Making the best of a bad job she wrote to all Labour Councillors:

Dear Colleagues

Over the past few weeks I have been reflecting on the proposals in front of Cabinet to increase visitor parking charges to address pressures on parking spaces across the borough. 

As with any proposed increase in charges this has been a contested and hotly debated subject. 
I have listened to many views, spoken to many residents, consulted with officers, looked at best practice elsewhere and of course heard from Labour Group colleagues.

I have been struck by the complexity of the issues and the many differing needs and requirements that we are trying to balance. We are fortunate in having two strategies which are a good foundation for our discussions: the Parking Strategy and the recently agreed Long Term Transport Strategy and aligning our actions with these will help to deliver our vision for a better borough for residents. 

I have come to the view that the visitor parking charges proposal needs to be set in the context of a wider review of our parking offer. Current arrangements have been developed over time in response to circumstances and events and whilst our policies are sound, they are also complex and not easily understood. I believe that we will get a better, and fairer outcome for local people, their visitors and local businesses if we look at the wider parking offer at the same time as the visitor parking permits. 

Our parking offer was already planned for review. I am now proposing to accelerate this work so that we can take a more holistic decision and have a really meaningful dialogue with residents about the best solutions. I will therefore delay the consultation on visitor permit parking charges until this wider work has been completed and intend to bring a report to March's cabinet.  

I'm sure you will agree that it is important that we get the strategy and policies right. I will, of course, arrange a session for Labour Group members to shape the proposals and I hope that you will be able to participate.

Thank you to everyone who has shared their views so far. Your continued support and involvement will ensure we get the right outcomes for residents, visitors and businesses.

I am, of course, very happy to meet with any of you to discuss this further.

 It is to be hoped that the 'wider work' will be thoroughly researched and costed and that this time it won't be left to Cllr Duffy to blow the whistle. Meanwhile perhaps he is owed some dulia by his colleagues.

Since publication I have been sent this comment  (Feb 4th)  which was  longer than the word limit in the usual comment box.

"All credit to Cllr John Duffy for his part in causing a rethink on the planned increase in visitor parking charges and to Cllr Ellie Southwood for being big enough to respond to reasoned concerns from affected residents. However Queen's Park Area Residents Association also held a session with Cllr Southwood and officials on these proposals and on 24 January wrote:

Dear Councillors and Officers,

QPARA discussed the Cabinet report on proposed increase in visitor parking charges at its January meeting, and this prompted a wider review of local parking congestion. The association would like following perspectives to be considered before final consultation on increased charges.

QPARA supports a general policy direction of increasing reliance on public transport, cycling and walking rather than on private cars, for environmental and public health reasons. Nevertheless there needs to be a balance between this and the very large proposed increases in daily charges for visitor parking. While there may be a case for a modest increase QPARA is concerned at the scale of this from £1.50 to £4.50. Charges are almost invariably paid by residents not visitors and the percentage increase is well beyond inflation. As an example a resident with 30 daily visitors a year will in future pay £135 for visitors rather than the current £45. This will be a particular pressure on residents on lower incomes.

The Council's case for the increase centres on high demand for parking in Controlled Parking Zones which leads to overcrowding, and that 'evidence also suggests that some households are using daily visitor permits to book parking on behalf of commuters'. However, we note that there is no general study of why parking overcrowding occurs in particular zones, and no attempt is made in the Cabinet report to form proposals for a wider range of solutions which could address this, nor its more general environmental impact. In the absence of this the Council identifies only one solution which will have at best a modest impact on overcrowding and is associated with an assumed increase in income of £795,000 in 2016/17 (para 6.1 of the report). It is hard to avoid a conclusion that this increase is driven more by the Council's need to increase income substantially rather than resolve overall parking congestion issues.

Accordingly QPARA proposes that Brent conducts a wider study of the impact of a range of factors leading to overcrowding within the ward before proceeding with such large increases. This study should include parking related to schools, business parking permits, under-used car club bays, bays used for builders' materials, and patchy parking enforcement (better enforcement alone could increase the Council's income substantially). For example the teacher permit regime is full of anomalies, with permits given to schools as a prize for having gold travel plans, without regard to pressure points in the overall parking system nor the impact on residents. Notwithstanding, if permits are awarded, these could at least be restricted to a nominated street only, such as by the Park away from streets which are 'parking congested.' Members have also commented that even small businesses can have three permits, and it would be straightforward to limit these to perhaps one to help address overcrowding, yet the Report does not explore this.

In a summary document the Council advises that 'for many visitors who need to park for only a short time, the availability of pay and display bays may better meet their needs than pre-booking a visitor permit' and refers to charges of £1 for 30 minutes or £2 for up to an hour when booked by mobile phone. This suggestion does not take account of the lack of availability of pay and display bays in large parts of QPARA's area, which is mainly residential, so this is not a solution for many (or most) residents. Moreover, where such bays do exist near to busy shopping areas they are often fully occupied and cannot be relied on. So while a partial solution may lie in creating more P & D or mixed use bays, and could be pursued, this is clearly only possible in streets where there is spare capacity.

The summary document refers also to the option of purchasing an annual visitor household permit for £110 (to increase to £165 during 2016). It does not make clear that the Council's Cabinet decided in 2012 to withdraw these permits, and while this is on hold because the Adult Social Care department has yet to find capacity to determine a resident's eligibility for a proposed 'cared-for' permit, it remains policy. While this annual permit may be an option for the present it does not provide a solution in the longer term.

Considering the range of proposed daily visitor charges from £3 to £4.50, many residents have commented that there needs to be a lower charge than £3 for shorter stays than 3 hours (a frequent requirement). Where meters are available (and if unoccupied) then these provide some solution, but as above these simply do not exist in large parts of QPARA's area. We propose therefore that a charge of £1.50 for visitor parking in residents' bays be retained for short stays of up to an hour, to provide equity for QPARA residents with parts of the borough where meters are more generally available.

Sufra Foodbank call for support for #FoodParcelChallenge

From Sufra North West London

If you’ve been feasting with family and friends over the Bank holiday weekend, have some pity on the 20 or so volunteers who started the #FoodParcelChallenge yesterday.

Last Sunday, Councillor Roxanne Mashari, Brent Council’s Lead Member for Employment & Skills, turned up at the food bank, alongside 22 other families in need and many volunteers, to pick up a food parcel for the start of the challenge. Together, we’re pledging to live on a typical food parcel for 5 days to raise awareness of food poverty in Brent and fundraise for Sufra NW London’s food bank.

The last financial year witnessed a 62% increase in the number of food parcels delivered, serving 3,858 people of whom more than two-thirds were unique users.

You can check out Councillor Roxanne Mashari’s daily blog on her experiences of taking part in the #FoodParcelChallenge here. Although I’m not sure I agree with her comments on Pea & Mint Soup!

The #FoodParcelChallenge seems easier that it looks. But it only hits you when you’re rummaging through the bags to see what’s for dinner. Yesterday, I had black coffee for breakfast and a biscuit, a can of baked beans for lunch and boiled rice for dinner with a tin of chick peas. And there wasn’t much of it either. You can follow our pangs of hunger and unrepentant rant on Twitter and Facebook.

But we need your help, to keep serving families in poverty and provide them with wholesome, healthy food during their time of crisis. Please support the team and sponsor us here.

The #FoodParcelChallenge will end with The Big Lunch on St. Raphael’s Estate, sponsored by Halifax and Daniel’s Estate Agents, on Saturday 30 May 2015. They’ll be a free barbecue, snacks and milkshakes, plus lots of entertainment. My mouth is watering just thinking about it!

£1,000 FOR YOUR VOTE

Yes, you have until Saturday, to help us win £1,000 from the Aviva Community Fund to set up a food growing project on St. Raphael’s Estate. This will help us provide fresh fruit and vegetables at the food bank and provide new volunteering and learning opportunities for the local community.

I’m not one to keep to my 5 a day, but now that I’m doing the #FoodParcelChallenge, I would die for a carrot. Even a tomato, and I hate tomatoes.

All you have to do is click here, create a login, and give us 10 votes. Now that’s not too much to ask for, is it? We need 5,000 votes, and we’re only half-way there.

Deadline is Saturday. Do it now.

Cllr Butt's alter ego takes to the Twittersphere

Let's face it Brent needs a bit of cheering up at the moment so Cllr Butt's new Twitter identity looks promising, even if it has confused a few people.

The parody account has only a few followers at present but that may change as the situation at Brent Council becomes more widely known.

Here are a few of the first tweets:

And for balance here are recent tweets from the real account:

Brent TUC and ex-Labour councillor join call for independent investigation into Brent Council following racism judgment

Brent Trades Union Council (Brent TUC) has followed Brent Green Party in calling for an independent investigation into Brent Council and their Corporate Management Team:

This is the resolution passed at their meeting yesterday:

DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO BRENT COUNCIL AND THEIR CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Brent Trades Union Council considers that the Employment Tribunal judgement that Brent Council has been guilty of racial discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal brings shame on the Council, especially in a borough that rightly prides itself on its diversity.

We call for the dismissal of Cara Davani, whose position is now clearly untenable, using the Council’s disciplinary procedures.  

In the light of the tribunal findings, we call for an investigation headed by an independent expert in race relations acceptable to both Councillors and Council Unions of:

1. The extent of racism and discriminatory practices within the Council;

2.  The working culture of the Human Resources department;
3.  Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution;

4. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal payroll;
5. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments;
6. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis.

In addition former Labour councillor and member of the Labour Representation Committee, Graham Durham has written to all the current Labour councillors:

I trust you have read of the finding of race discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal against Brent Council.

I recommend that you find time to read the full report of the case ( Employment Tribunal Case Number 3302741/2013.)

I  am sure you will agree that this is a shocking indictment  of an  individual senior manager but also  of the apparent culture which was allowed to flourish in Brent Council management. It is a disgrace to all of us in Brent and especially to the Labour Party which was in control of the Council throughout the period referred.

I am sure that you will want to ensure appropriate disciplinary action commences promptly. Perhaps more importantly I hope you will support the demand of Brent Trades Council that an independent enquiry is established headed by an independent expert in diversity practice and with membership agreed by Council trade unions and the Council members. The enquiry should cover diversity policy, management behaviour and culture and the rights of staff to be  protected  from victimisation.

Many of you will know that Brent Council once had an international reputation for challenging racism and promoting equalities. In the 1980’s the Tory press attacked the Labour Council ,of which I was proud to be a member, for our determination to challenge decades of racist behaviour. Journalists from The Sun and other papers harassed us but we stood firm. Our stand then led to a proud history of record numbers of black councillors and MPs in Brent and for Brent having a reputation as the equality Council.

This proud reputation is now in tatters. It will be important for us to debate in the party how the Council leadership allowed this to occur.

I urge you to take immediate action to try to restore our reputation

£100m spent on the Civic Centre and the phones don't work

Town Hall car park still full

I spoke to one of Brent's Labour councillors recently about the problems at the new Civic Centre. The councillor had been frustrated by unanswered telephone calls and inaudibility when they were answered. Now told that things may not be working properly for another 6 months the councillor was outraged, 'Why couldn't they wait until everything was checked and working properly before rushing to move us in?'

The Council's corporate risk assessment had recorded a risk with the telecommunications system before the move and the danger this posed both to the effective running of the Council and to its reputation.

The councillor added, 'No one is talking about it publicly but we all know how bad it is.'

Meanwhile residents puzzled as to why the now empty Brent Town Hall has a full car park need look no further than the Civic Centre.  The Centre was designed to discourage car use by council staff and encourage a shift to public transport. Instead it seems that staff are driving to the Town Hall and parking there, thus avoiding parking charges, and walking round the corner to Bridge Road and accessing the Civic Centre via Olympic Way.  That option will soon disappear when the French School starts work on adapting the Town Hall.