UPDATED: Labour rebellion over Principal Opposition designation

Brent Council's  CEO, Carolyn Downs, announced tonight at the Brent Council AGM that  she will be commissioning an independent person to review the whole episode of Cllr Tayo Oladapo's death going back to January 2016.  (This is not the same person as the Council's Independent Person. The reviewer's identity wil be made known in due course.) Any recommendations arising from the review would be brought to Full Council.

Downs  outlined the sequence of events that included reports earlier in the year that Cllr Oladapo had gone back to Nigeria, his country of origin.   These had not been reported to Council on February 22nd  because there was no confirmation that this was the case. There were then reports of his death that could not be confirmed as the Registrar said the death had not been registered.   Letters to his address in Harlesden got no response and attempts to contact relatives in Nigeria and the USA also drew a blank.

On the 9th March police were contacted and on 10th March they had confirmed the councillor had died on January 29th. On March  11th his death was announced by the Council. LINK  (WM note -The announcement posted by Brent Council on March 11th did not mention the earlier date of death).

Cllr Oladapo's death was not officially registered by his mother until May 11th.  Carolyn Downs had then been able to convey her and the Council's condolences.

Councillors from all sides of the chamber paid tribute to Cllr Oladapo. Cllr Stopp was not called but his tribute appears HERE .

Later in the meeting some Labour councillors abstained on a vote to recognise the Conservative Group as the official opposition. This is the group based in Kenton now led by Cllr Reg Colwill. Earlier the Brondesbury Park Brent Conservatives  had failed in a bid to occupy the front  bench seats currently occupied by the Conservative Group.

A senior councillor told me that  the Brondesbury Park Conservatives would make a better, and much needed, Opposition. Apparently some felt that it was an abuse of Labour's huge  majority to use it to install a tame opposition that would give the ruling group an easy ride. It was better to leave the seven opposition councillors to decide between themselves. That would of course have Cllr Helen Carr wielding the casting vote..

Abstainers were Cllrs Perrin, Nerva, Collier, Chan, Marquis, Stopp, Long, Thomas, Tatler, Kelcher, Duffy  and Ramesh Patel.

Cabinet posts approved were:

Butt (Leader), McLennan (Deputy). Farah (Housing) Hirani (Community Wellbeing), Mashari (Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, Mitchell Murray (Children and Young People), Pavey (Stronger Communities) Southwood (Environment).

Mashari adds Regeneration to her portfolio while Pavey's post is a clear demotion after his leadership challenge.  It is not clear whether McLennan will take on the Finance and Human Resources responsibilities previously led by Pavey.

The key Planning Committee,  is still chaired by Cllr Marquis but the membership is relatively inexperienced with the exception of Cllrs Long and Moher. Other members of the Committee are Agha, Hylton, J Mitchell Murray and newly elected Kilburn councillor Pitruzzella.

Joining the controversial Cllr Allie on Standards are Collier, Kabir (former whip) and Krupa Sheth. Collier will have his work cut out to persuade his colleagues to adopt a strong stance in dealing with any referrals. Mandip Johal was recommended for appointment as an Independent Person.  The recommendation said that Mandip had over 10 years experience of dealing with professional misconduct complaints within the legal profession.

In an almost one-party Council strong Scrutiny Committees are essential and the memberships announced this evening slightly better than I feared.

The Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee is chaired by Ketan Sheth and other members are Hoda-Benn, Conneely, Hector, Jones, Nerva and Shahzad.

Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny is chaired by Cllr Kelcher. Committee members are Aden, Choudhary, Ezeajughi. Miller, Tatler and M Patel.

Cllr Stopp, previously on the Scrutiny Committee has now relegated to Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing  (with Cllr Perrin) and the  Trading Standards Joint Advisory Board.  Duffy remains out in the cold.

Brent Labour's new cabinet announced

The new Cabinet

A challenge to Cllr Muhammed Butt's leadership by Cllr Neil Nerva was beaten at today's Labour AGM when Butt won 75% of the votes.

Cllr Michael Pavey narrowly beat Cllr Ruth Moher for the Deputy Leadership. Pavey told Labour councillors that he would devote all his energy to supporting Cllr Butt's reforms, freeing the leader to 'lead from the front'. His precise brief in addition to being deputy has not been decided but a source said that he was likely to be a 'more political' deputy.

Cllr James Denselow beat Cllr Aslam Choudry  by three votes for the Stronger Communities portfolio. This will make him responsible for community and voluntary sector engagement, libraries  and crime reduction.

Cllr George Crane stood down from the Executive and Cllr Margaret McLennan will take on regeneration policy, Crane's former portfolio,  as well as housing.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari will take on a new portfolio for Employment and Skills  and newly elected Cllr Keith Perrin will become lead member for the Environment.

Cllr Krupesh Hirani will continue as lead member for Adults, Health and Wellbeing and Cllr Ruth Moher will take over Michael Pavey's position as Lead Member for the renamed Children and Young People portfolio.

The Cabinet will consist of 8 members compared with 10 on the previous Executive.

Cllr Pat Harrison continues as Labour Group chair and Cllr Sandra Kabir replaces Cllr Shafique Choudhary as Labour Chief Whip.

Cllr Kana Naheerathan will be Labour's nomination for Mayor and Cllr Lesley Jones deputy,

The proposal that the Labour leader should only face re-election every four years, instead of annually, will be decided later. It has proved controversial with Cllr Butt  apparently claiming that he cannot keep looking over his shoulder every year.

Chairs of Scrutiny, Planning and other committees will be decided on Monday.

Brent Labour concentrates power in proposed constitutional changes

The Brent Council Executive will be replaced by a Cabinet of between three and ten members in constitutional changes going before Full Council on Wednesday 4th June. Report HERE

Along with other proposed changes the overall impact is greater centralisation of power in fewer hands. The changes enable Muhammed Butt to reduce the size of the new Cabinet compared with the previous Executive if he so wishes. There have been rumours that this may happen but other sources suggest that a reduction would leave a large number of potentially disruptive Labour councillors disgruntled by thwarted ambitions.

The new Labour group is meeting on Saturday to decide positions in the new adminstration.

Half of Cabinet Meetings will now take place during the day, alternating with evening meetings. At the same time the Council's five scrutiny committees will be reduced to one.

Deputations will now be allowed at meetings of Full Council, allocated a maximum of 15 minutes with a maximum of 5 minutes per speaker. The criteria for such delegations are limiting and leave a considerable amount of power with the officers:

Any deputation must directly concern a matter affecting the borough and relate to a Council function. Deputations shall not relate to legal proceedings or be a matter which is or has been the subject of a complaint under the Council's complaints processes. Nor should a deputation be frivolous, vexatious or defamatory. The Director of Legal and Procurement [Fiona Ledden] shall have discretion to decide whether the deputation is for any reason inappropriate and cannot proceed.

There shall be a maximum of 3 deputations at any one council meeting on different subject matters. There shall be no more than one deputation made by the same person or organisation in a six month period and no repetition of the subject.

Standing Order 40 for Full Council which allowed for debate on 'Key Issues affecting the borough' is deleted as 'it no longer serves a purpose'.

Standing Order 39 'Questions from the Opposition and Non-Executive Members' will be amended to provide that questions are given in writing 7 days in advance with no supplementary questions allowed. The number of questions will be amended 'to reflect the new political balance of the Council'.

Further it is proposed under Standing Order 45 that 'the number of motions and the debate in relating to motions be amended to reflect the new political balance of the Council.

Following the Labour landslide the membership of Council committees is revised with no Liberal Democrat representation:

General Purposes Labour 9 Conservative 1
Planning Labour 10 Conservative 1
Audit Labour 4 Conservative 1
Standards Labour 4 Conservative 1
Corporate Parenting Labour 4 Conservative 1

The Scrutiny Committee, now a single entity and clearly important in terms of holding the Council to account, will have 7 Labour and 1 Conservative member plus 4 voting co-opted members and 2 non-voting co-opted members. This gives the Labour members a voting majority.

Only Labour and Conservatives will qualify for the appointment of political assistants.

The Appendix below which contains tracked changes to the Constitution reveals the extent of the proposals:

Brent Council approves £18m budget cuts and HS2 action

Brent Labour Councillors last night unanimously voted for a budget incorporating £18m cuts amidst Liberal Democrat protests against what they saw as an unconstitutional use of  a procedural motion to limit debate.

Moving the budget Labour Leader Muhammad Butt attacked the Coalition for cutting local government funding and justified the budget on 'dented shield grounds' arguing that he would not repeat the mistakes made by Labour Councils in the 70s by bringing in administrators unsympathetic to local concerns.

The Lib Dems put forward an amendment that put forward additional expenditure on libraries (to fund working  with volunteers), highways, parking, street cleaning, festivals, school crossing patrols and providing a 50% discount to special constables - to be funded by cutting some senior staffing costs and ward working and using reserves to fund one-off spending.

The Council's proposal to petition parliament on HS2 was approved although Cllr George Crane said there was a 'strong possibility' that HS2 would rescind compulsory purchase orders in South Kilburn. The Council would continue with its action until the HS2 move was confirmed. Crane added a further recommendation to the report which covered regular consultation and updating with South Kilburn residents. Representatives of residents had been denied the opportunity to speak at the Executive.

Brent Executive to discuss £18m budget cut tonight

The Brent Executive will tonight discuss a budget reduction for 2014-15 of £18m that will go before Full Council for final approval. This is achieved through a mixture of reduction in services, out-sourcing, adminstrative savings and increased fees.

The 'savings' are in the following service areas:

Adult Social Care £4,450,000
Children and Young People £3,157,000
Environment and Neighbourhoods £3,412,000
Regeneration and Growth £2,729,000
Corporate Service £4,081,000

Full details are here:

The Executive will also discuss proposals on council rent increases which average 3.7% or £4.53 per week per dwelling with higher increases for larger properties. Full details HERE

Powney floats Brent council tax rise to address poverty

Cllr James Powney, an ex-member of the Brent Executive has had little reaction to a blog he wrote last month on the possibility of raising Council Tax to set up a Poverty Fund to protect the poorest Brent residents.LINK

Last month the possibility of a  a referendum on raising Council Tax was aired by Cllr Muhammed Butt at the Willesden Connects Forum who said that there was a rigorous debate about the issue in the Labour group. However the debate was quickly snuffed out by a tweet from Butt which said that Brent Council had no plans to increase Council Tax in as they had to protect residents' living standards.

Council Tax is frozen for 2014-15 but perhaps James Powney's idea will be considered for 2015-16 if Labour are returned to power at the local election in May.

This is what Cllr Powney wrote:

My own view is that we have to have a Poverty Fund in the way other Councils are doing.  It looks like Crisis Payments are being abolished by the Tory Government.  I think it sensible to try to pool various grants in one scheme to protect the poorest.  While that could make use of the residue of the crisis payment scheme, it would need some ongoing funding

I envisage such a source of funding being a rise in Council Tax.  Granted some people regard this as automatically beyond the Pale, but Brent has not had a Council Tax rise since 2010.

Whereas the previous Liberal Democrat administration promised to freeze the Council tax and in fact raised it. I don't think that had anything to do with their election defeat.  They were just unpopular for more general reasons.

I think a lot of ordinary voters would be quite sympathetic to a fund targeted to people in real need.

Parent power overthrows school expansion plans

I had a clash of meetings tonight so was unable to attend the Brent Executive. However Cllr James Denselow has tweeted that they rejected the officers' recommendation to expand Princess Frederica Primary School.  An unusual event.

Congratulations to the parents who fought a well informed campaign and managed to persuade Councillors Pavey and Denselow of their cause at a public meeting just before Christmas.

Officers, schools, the Diocesan Board and governors were thanked for their efforts and a review of current needs, to include community feedback was promised.  A new programme of expansion, including more creative solutions, will be developed during 2014.

The problems and limits of expansion on existing sites makes it even more important that local residents, parents and Brent Council support the School Places Crisis Campaign which seeks to reinstate local council's right to build new local authority schools where they are needed. LINK

Earlier coverage of the issue HERE

Brent Council decides bins more important than human rights

Labour Brent Council's Executive last night approved the awarding of the £142.3m Public Realm contract to Veolia despite representations calling for the company to be removed from the procurement process because if its alleged grave misconduct in servicing illegal Israel settlements in the Occupied Territories of Palestine.

 The Executive was addressed by Dan Judelson of Brent Jews for Justice for Palestinians,  Cllr Paul Lorber, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the council, and myself.

Executive members argued, to varying degrees, that they cared about human rights and the plight of the Palestinians, but that they had no option, for legal reasons and to get the best deal for Brent council tax payers, to award the contract to Veolia. Cllr Jim Moher, rolled out on these occasions as the Executive's blunderbus, accused me and Paul Lorber of attempting to wreck the contract with an eye on gaining electoral advantage next year. He said that people like us, trying to occupy the high moral ground, may be concerned about human rights but the man in the street cared about his bins being emptied. Muhammed Butt summing up said there was no greater advocate than him of the Palestinian cause but that the Council had to act legally and could not risk Veolia taking legal action against them for not following procedures. He added that faced with huge cuts in central government funding the savings the new contract involved was the most important issue.

Fiona Ledden, answering a challenge about lack of transparency in not informing  the campaign and the public of the legal advice she had received regarding  Bin Veolia in Brent's allegation said that she was constrained because it would be irresponsible to share legal advice with the public as it was privileged. It had been shared with members of the Executive behind closed doors. If the advice had been made public it could have been used by other parties in a Judicial Review. She said that she had received clear legal advice that Veolia UK was a separate company from that operating in Israel/Palestine and that in her communications with other local authorities she could find no case of Veolia being excluded from a contract.

This is the speech I made to the Executive:
 

When Muhammed Butt took over from Ann John as council leader he recognised, in the light of the library closures issue, the need to communicate with residents better and engage with them –

        

                                         be a ‘listening council’

Following his disagreement with Gareth Daniel  (former Chief Executive) he recognised the need to rebalance the power relationship between officers and elected members

                                   he wanted to move from ‘managerialism’ to              

                                        political leadership.

The public realm contract issue leads us to ask:

                                what happened to these intentions?

Veolia’s activities in the occupied territories of Israel are a moral and human rights issue, as well as a ‘political one’ just as British companies’ collusion with the Apartheid regime in South Africa was for the Brent Labour administration in the 1980s.

But from the beginning we were handed over to officers to discuss the issue – not elected members.

These officers were about as transparent as a lump of lead.

We gave officers detailed legal evidence on Veolia’s grave misconduct in the occupied territories – the procurement panel decided there were no grounds for exclusion of Veolia but gave no reasons why or how they had reached that decision.

We and our human rights lawyer met Fiona Ledden (Head of Procurement) to ask what legal advice they had received so that we could respond – they refused to tell us what the advice was and its source. We were put in the Kafkaesque situation of attempting to respond to evidence we couldn’t see. Our lawyer warned Fiona Ledden that this refusal could be used to press for a judicial review.

We asked if our allegations had been put to Veolia, they said no.

Surely any fair process would do that and should have in terms of protecting the council’s reputation.

When Veolia did write to the council, apparently of their own volition, they claimed to have sold the Tovlan landfill site. We submitted evidence that this was untrue.  No reaction from officers to being deliberately misled by a bidder.

When Enterprise asked for extra time to put in their final bid they were refused. The council’s reason for refusal of extra time are almost the same, and as unenlightening, as the refusal to exercise their discretion to exclude Veolia –

‘because that’s what we have decided.’

So no comeback for Veolia for giving misleading information to the council but instead officers’ action leaving Veolia as the only bidder.

If the officers refused to engage with us, what about the elected members of the executive?

Our petition with more than 2,000 signatures was presented to the executive. There was no response from the Executive member leading on the environment. It was referred to Fiona Ledden, head of procurement for consideration.  The same Fiona Ledden who had been stonewalling us.

A request to Cllr butt and Fiona Ledden for the outcome of that consideration was requested some time ago but only answered on Thursday. This merely said the council did not intent to revisit the decision not to exclude Veolia made on January 31^st

                                          in other words ‘we are ignoring your petition’

Our supporters made presentations on the issue to various Brent Connects forums. The notes say their comments would be referred to Cllr Roxanne Mashari as lead member for environment.  They have heard no more.

Liz Lindsay, Secretary of Brent and Harrow PSC has received no response to a request sent to Cllr Mashari in June, to meet with her and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians regarding the contract.

The officers’ report you are considering this evening makes absolutely no reference to any of these representations. If we had not made them public and written to councillors you will have had no idea that this is a controversial issue.

           Transparency? Accountability? Participation?

The GCs of both Hampstead and Kilburn and Brent Central Labour parties, Brent TUC and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians have supported our case.  We have been supported by several of the candidates for the Brent Central parliamentary nomination. Brent Lib Dems were ruled out of order when they tried to put a question about Veolia at full council.

I know that some members of the Executive have misgivings on the issue. Cllr Mashari herself, reporting on a visit to Israel/Palestine with the Young Fabians, paid for by BICOM (set up to ‘create a more supportive environment for Israel in Britain) said that the one issue she was repeatedly told should be addressed to bring peace was that of illegal Israeli settlements.

Apart from all of the above can the council truly save that they are sure of ‘best value’ for Brent residents in a process that led, at the final hurdle, to Veolia having no competitor for the Executive to consider.

 In Q1 of 2013-14 there was a failure to reach targets for reduction in residual waste and increased recycling at a cost of £226,000 with Veolia the current contractor.

We suggest the Executive:

1.     Extend the current contract for a year

2.     Start a new procurement process with robust ethical conditions attached

3.     Consider separating the parks/ground maintenance services from that contract to allow waste specialist companies to bid.

4.     Consider supporting an in-house bid for the parks/grounds maintenance contract

Will Veolia, as sole bidder, represent Best Value for Brent Public Realm contract?

The Officers' report on the Public Realm contract to be presented to the Brent Council Executive on Monday October 14th reveals that only Veolia submitted a final bid. Serco dropped out at Stage 3 due to internal changes within the company structure and 'issues relating to resourcing and targets' but more controversially at the final stage Enterprise, the only competitor to Veolia left, asked for extra time to finalise their bid. The report states:

Officers fully considered the merits of the request but determined that it was not appropriate to agree such an extension.

The report contains no explanation or justification for this decision in the same way as campaigners were given no explanation for the panel's decision that no grounds existed for the exclusion of Veolia on human rights grounds.

A spokesman for Amey, who now own Enterprise said unfortunately as there is an on-going procuremnt process, we cannot comment further at this time.

The officers' decision means that the comparative tables for the Invitation to Submit Final Tenders (ISFT) stage look rather ludicrous:

In an email to Brent Executive members I wrote:

It is clearly legitimate to ask if ‘Best Value’ has been obtained when such a large contract is awarded with no competitive bid to evaluate it against. It is also legitimate to ask why Enterprise was not granted more time to submit. (Enterprise has now been taken over by Amey)

The new contract is a mixed bag with some improvements envisaged for the service but other changes which impact on jobs.

The Council expects costs for the new contract to be £1.3m less in the first year 2014-15 rising to £1.7m in 2017-18. This is brought about by reduction in the crews of bin lorries and the expectation that all residents, except those not physically able to, will leave their bins at their property boundary. These changes will be implemented before the new contract with a reduction in costs this financial year of £300,000.

88 council workers are directly affected  and will be subject to TUPE, although Veolia has said it will honour their pension position. Wetton's employees who service Brent Housing Partnership estates  and SDK employees who empty the dog excrement bins will also be subject to TUPE,

More positively, Veolia has undertaken to pay those who remain the London Living Wage, although that will be little comfort to those who lose their jobs. Volia has also undrtaken to fulfill the 'Safer Lorries' pledge which protects cyclists, to offer 8 apprenticeships and to take action to offer jobs locally through various agencies.

One aspect that may concern councillors is that Veolia will be responsible for monitoring itself:

The contract will be self-monitoring, meaning that the contractor is accountable for measuring, monitoring and improving their own performance with the council carefully auditing their performance. This, along with Key Outcome Targets set for each of the different services will ensure that the Contractor is motivated to deliver the services.

Veolia will also be dealing with complaints from councillors and residents in the first instance thus 'placing responsibility on the Contractor to ‘own’ and be accountable for service complaints'.

All new or replacement residual bins will be 140litre rather than the present 240litre. Large households or multi-occupied premises will be able to request a largr bin if they can justify it. Although increased recycling should mean a smaller residual bin is adequate I do worry that some of the fly-tipping so evident on our streets is the result of residual bins being full and residents then dumping the excess on the street.

There are changes to the street sweeping regime with the expectation that streets will meet the Grade A standard after cleansing and will not fall below Grade B:

Grade A: No litter or refuse
Grade B: Predominately free of litter and refuse apart from some small items
Grade C: Widespread distribution of litter and/or refuse with minor accumulations
Grade D: Heavily affected by litter and/or refuse with significant accumulations

This is clearly a challenge given the current state of our streets.

One of the main concerns of residents has been over parks maintenance. We are rightly proud of our parks and have witnessed the sensitivity of Brent staff in maintaining them properly, rather than the 'chainsaw' gardening that we see on some estates where shrubs are reduced to three dimensional geometric shapes regardless of whether they are about to come into flower or have a different natural shape.

Although the report says that Veolia has agreed to maintain the parks to Green Flag standard, without any further explanation it also says that the council will no longer submit  applications for Green Flag Awards. Given how the council has always proudly publicised these awards, and the tremendous effort parks staff put into achieving them, I can only ask why not submit applications? Surely the Award is a prestigious external audit of the success or otherwise of the contract?

The full report can be found HERE

Brent Officers recommend Veolia gets multi-million pound Public Realm contract

Usually well informed Brent Council sources say the the Brent Council Executive on October 14th will be recommended by officers to award the new multi-million Public Realm contract to the controversial French multi-national Veolia.

The contract covers waste collection, recycling, street sweeping, parks maintenance, cemeteries maintenance and grounds maintenance for Brent Housing Partnership estates.

The Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign has called on the Council to exclude Veolia from the lucrative contract on the grounds of its grave misconduct. The allegations relate to Veolia's operations in the occupied territories of Palestine where it helps maintain the infrastructure for illegal Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

Bin Veolia in Brent argue that Brnt council tax payers' money should not be used to enrich a company involved in the undermining of Palestinian human rights. Brent Council, representing a diverse population and committed to social justice, should ensure that it only awards contracts to ethical companies - just as pension fund investments are subject to an ethical test..

The Bin Veolia campaign's argument was backed by the General Committees of both the Brent Central and Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Parties, many individual Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green party members as well as Brent Trade Union Council and Brent members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition calling for the exclusion of Veolia from the contract. There were speakers supporting exclusion at many of the last round of Brent Connects forums. Their comments were referred to Cllr Roxanne Mashari but the petition was referred to Fiona Ledden, head of legal and procurement and no response has been forthcoming.

Throughout the process Bin Veolia in Brent and Brent Palestine Solidarity Campaign have published their legal advice on the issue. For their part Brent Council officers have been obstructive and despite Freedom of Information requests have refused to publish the  legal advice  they have obtained.  This made it impossible for the campaigns to answer legal points taken on board by the council. It is likely that the council's failure to be transparent and answer genuine questions from residents could be grounds for a judicial review.

An attempt by Liberal Democrat councillors to raise the issue at a full council meeting was ruled out of order on the advice of officers.

A spokesperson for the Bin Veolia in Brent campaign said:

If the sources are correct then Brent councillors on the Executive need to seriously consider rejecting the officers' recommendation. The Council only recently awarded the Freedom of Brent to Nelson Mandela, a man who said he could never be free until the Palestinians are free. Back in the 80s the Labour Brent Council was in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and despite officer advice at the time did take a stand against awarding IT contracts to firms operating in South Africa.

Brent Labour Council should stand up for the freedom of Palestinians, not give our money to a company that helps oppress them.

The agenda for the Brent Executive will not be available on the council website until the weekend.

Brent Fightback to protest at meals on wheels and care centre meals changes

Brent Fightback is calling a protest at the Civic Centre tomorrow Monday 16th September from 6.30pm to protest at the proposal that Brent Council hand over the delivery of the meals on wheels service to “a range of local charities, communities and businesses” and meals at day care centres will also be supplied by these groups.

The proposal will be discussed at the Brent Executive that evening at 7pm and a member of Fightback will address them about concerns.

Fightback say:

Currently, the meals on wheels service is outsourced. However, rather than a proposal which would cut out the profit-makers, this proposal is purely about cutting cost (by 50%). This decision will lead to cuts in quality of the meals, and pay (are the charities/community groups using unpaid volunteers?), the council's own risk assessment evaluates "Lack of market capacity leads to service users going without meals" = High!
http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s19140/asc-community-meals.pdf
ie. most vulnerable, elderly and sick could be left without access to meals!

Butt poses key questions on future of NHS provision in Brent for Executive endorsement

The Brent Executive will be asked to retrospectively endorse a personal submission made by Council Leader Muhammed Butt to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. The IRP was gathering evidence on the Shaping a Healthier Future plans for health services in North West London which include the closure of Central Middlesex A &E  and submissions closed  yesterday.

Th IRP will report to the Secretary of State on September 13th and his decision will be made in October 2013.

Muhammed Butt's Submission

I am writing to you to express my views on the Shaping a Healthier Future programme (SAHF). It is accepted that the NHS needs to change and services have to evolve but I have some serious concerns with the proposals as they stand, and whether they can really deliver improvements to health care in North West London within the planned timetable for implementation. I support the referral that Ealing Council has made to the Secretary of State for Health that will see the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals reviewed by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. It is important that the plans are subject to robust and independent scrutiny and that the modelling and assumptions built into the proposals are properly tested.

Out of Hospital Care

SAHF makes it clear that changes to out of hospital care are essential if it is to deliver the planned changes to acute care. The general princip le of transferring services from acute to community locations with investment in primary and community care, where appropriate, is welcomed. People should not have to travel to hospitals for routine care or to manage a long term condition.

That said, I am concerned about whether the proposed changes can really be delivered, and even if they are, will they deliver the reduction in demand for acute services that SAHF claims?

I have seen no guarantees that out of hospital care will get the investment in the near future that is needed to ensure that SAHF can deliver improvements. The business case outlines the level of out of hospital care investment required, but in times of financial pressure and constantly shifting priorities, I need cast iron assurances from all of the CCGs in North West London that this money will be allocated to out of hospital services that underpin SAHF no matter what other challenges are faced in the coming years. 
 

The Decision Making Business Case (DMBC) is clear that commissioners and providers should not undertake reconfiguration of hospital services until out of hospital care is shown to be working and have sufficiently reduced demand on acute services. But I need clarity on exactly what the thresholds are for the reduction in demand that will need to be met before the reconfiguration of acute services is allowed to begin, particularly on critical services such as A&E.

I also need to be convinced that delivering more and more services out of hospital will be cheaper for the NHS. There is an assumption that this is the case, but I have seen no evidence to support it. One of the benefits of providing services in a hospital setting is the critical mass that can be achieved by locating services in one place. For some services, such as maternity, we will see a reduction in the number of places services can be offered.

For other services, we will see an increase in settings as services are delivered away from hospitals. The CCGs need to demonstrate more clearly how out of hospital services will be cheaper.

While there appears to be a general consensus of support across CCGs in North West London for the provision of out of hospital care, the provision of this falls to individual CCGs and individual Out of Hospital Care Strategies. A failure to deliver an Out of Hospital Care Strategy in any one CCG areas could have a knock oneffect on neighbouring CCGs, particularly if it affects demand on shared acute care services. For example (and this is hypothetical), if Harrow CCG fails to reduce demand for acute services, how will this affect Brent residents using Northwick Park Hospital where services could be under extreme pressure? Similarly, in these times of stark finances and shifting priorities, if one CCG decided to reduce its commitment to out of hospital care, it is not clear what the effect would be on neighbouring boroughs and shared acute service provision.

GP Support and “Hubs”

The Out of Hospital Strategy underpinning SAHF cannot succeed without GP support and I note that one of the key issues listed in the panel’s terms of reference is the consideration of GP’s views. I have seen no evidence of grass-rootsGP support for the changes, particularly in relation to out of hospital care (I refer to GPs themselves rather than the CCG). Although GP events took place, the DMBC gives limited reference to them, despite the report’s acknowledgement that Health Scrutiny Committees in North West London had made it clear that they expected to see evidence of GP support.

It seems to be a general assumption throughout the decision making process that the support of CCGs should be taken as implicit supportof GPs. This is an erroneous and dangerous assumption. Shaping a Healthier Future relies heavily on additional out of hospital services and without the full buy-in and cooperation of GPs SAHF will face serious, if not insurmountable, challenges. I ask that the IRP challenge the CCGs to provide the full details and results of the GP engagement activities that were undertaken to demonstrate that there is GP support for their proposals

Besides the lack of evidence of general support fro m GPs, we have seen little evidence that GPs will be prepared to make changes to the way they work or provide additional services/support that is required. SAHF and the CCGs needs to satisfy the panel that the GP elements of the Out of Hours services can be delivered, and what the back-up alternatives are in cases where it proves they cannot.

One of the key elements of the Out of Hospital Strategy is the provision of additional local medical centres (“hubs”). Yet purpose built centres that already exist in Brent have not fulfilled their potential. Monks Park Medical Centre for example remains under-occupied and consequently underused. Similarly, I understand that the NHS Brent has failed in the past to encourage a GP practice (the Willesden Medical Centre) to relocate into the Willesden Centre for Health and Care (one of the designated hubs) despite considerable efforts. I urge the panel to fully investigate SAHF's claims that the proposed centres will really be able to deliver on their promises across NW London and particularly in Brent.

Evidence from Brent to date suggests that efforts to move GP practices into purpose build medical centres have not succeeded and that they remain committed to working from their existing premises. Why should SAHF change this?

Given that “hub” medical centres are a central component of the Out of Hospital strategy underpinning SAHF, I need to see more clarity on exactly what services are planned for each hub. In particular there needs to be clarity on exactly what services will be provided at Willesden Centre for Health and Care and for Wembley Centre for Health and Care, which are already large medical centres in Brent and two of the designated hubs. I also want to see assurances that no existing services at these sites are going to be removed.

GP access is already a serious issue in Brent, particularly in the south of the borough, and previous attempts by the PCT to address this have had little success. Since SAHF is dependent on increasing GP access I urge the panel to establish with the CCGs (particularly Brent CCG) what evidence they have that that their new attempts to increase GP access will succeed where previous attempts have failed. Without this A&E attendances and acute demand will continue to rise.

Changes to acute care

I have seen little tangible evidence to support the models for individual services leading to reduction in demand on acute services. I acknowledge that there will be an element of risk in the modelling of any service reconfiguration, but the scale of change is huge and the impact of the Out of Hospital services not producing the required reduction in acute demand could be catastrophic. To this end I urge the IRP to establish what mitigation plans there are if the model fails, either for individual parts of the reconfiguration or for more fundamental modelling of the reconfiguration as a whole.

An example of a proposed service change that causes me concern is the provision of maternity beds at Northwick Park. Under the proposals there will be an increase from 69 to 70 beds by 2015/16, but a 20% increase in births atthe site. This appears to be based on the questionable assumption that a 15% reduction in average length of stay can be achieved by 2015/16. I ask the panel to establish what provision has been made if North West London Hospitals fails to deliver the numbers proposed?

Previous attempts to reduce acute demand through faster discharge have been unsuccessful and I would be interested to hear why SAHF believes it will succeed where previous attempts have failed.

I am particularly concerned about the deliverability of the proposals - maternity is one example. Changes on the scale proposed by Shaping a Healthier Future would ideally be carried out in a stable and highly functioning health system. But, we know that the NHS is in crisis, and North West London is not immune to this

.

Central Middlesex Hospital

It will come as no surprise to you that I am concerned about the future plans for Central Middlesex Hospital. Central Middlesex serves the south of Brent, which contains areas of significant deprivation and poverty. Has there been any research done on the evening closure of A&E at Central Middlesex that is already in place, and its effect on Northwick Park, St Mary's and other neighbouring hospitals? Northwick Park’s A&E Department is already failing to perform adequately or safely. Unless out of hospital services deliver a marked reduction in the use of Northwick Park’s A&E, the removal of A&E services at Central Middlesex could cause Northwick Park hospital to reach breaking point.

I note that North West London Hospitals and Brent CCG both support the plans for the closure of A&E at Central Middlesex but that does not alter the fact that there is a genuine, strongly felt public opposition to this plan which cannot be ignored and I urge the panel to give this strong consideration when they consider the proposals.

It is proposed that Central Middlesex be an elective hospital with an Urgent Care Centre. However, there is a complete lack of information on precisely what elective services will be delivered at the site, and what catchment area they will serve. It is also unclear what the UCC will provide despite plans for a standard UCC offer to be developed across London. A working group set up to develop plans for UCCs has,to the best of my knowledge, not published any proposals. I need to see clarification from Brent CCG on its plans for services at Central Middlesex Hospital and assurances on its long term viability as an NHS hospital before I can support the proposed changes.

Northwick Park Hospital

Northwick Park has struggled for some time to deliver an adequate or safe A&E and has one of, if not the worst, “four hour waiting time” performance in the country. It has recently had a crisis summit focussing on A&E leading to the imposition of an “Implementation Plan” to address the issues. Is it really prudent to give extra A&E responsibilities to a hospital that has shown itself incapable of delivering adequate A&E services to date and what is being put in place to manage these increased risks? The recent risk summit at the Trust highlighted the depth of the problems that currently exist and I have serious concerns about how you can transform a system which is already in crisis.

In addition, the response to the current A&E crisis at Northwick Park has been to utilise facilities at Central Middlesex. What back-up options will there be in the future once Central Middlesex’s emergency facilities have been removed?

Equalities and Population

Many residents of the south of Brent suffer deprivation and hardship. It is an area with a high proportion of BME residents and residents with English as a second language. We have sought assurances from SAHF that these communities will not be unduly disadvantaged by the reconfigurations and particularly the closure of Central Middlesex A&E.

In particular we have sought clarity on the travel implications for both patients and residents. To date we remain dissatisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to this. Clinical priorities are cited as being more important, but we should not ignore the fact that the mental health and recovery of patients can be dependent on regular visits and support from family and friends and I urge the panel to push for clarity on the effect that the changes would have on low cost transport options for patients and visitors, particularly in this deprived area. We would similarly seek assurances from Brent CCG that it will take seriously the public transport implications to the medical centre "hubs", which besides being an equalities issue, could reduce the numbers of patients using these services.

Conclusion

I want Brent Council to work constructively to challenge our NHS colleagues. I am not opposed to change without good reason, but I remain concerned at the lack of clarity in key areas, including: 

 

• The ability to deliver better out of hospital services

• That Northwick Park Hospital will be able to provide additional acute services for an expanded population

• The future of Central Middlesex Hospital. Despite the Shaping a Healthier Future plans being published a year ago, I am no closer to understanding what will be delivered from the Central Middlesex Hospital once it becomes an elective centre.

Mary Arnold to step down as a councillor in 2014

Following the changes in the Brent Executive it was likely that some of those who have been replaced would review their wider role as councillors. Having done a good stint in her Executive role and recognising that the election results represent a generational change, Cllr Mary Arnold, former lead member for children and families, has decided not to put herself forward as a 2014 candidate for the Kilburn ward.

Before the AGM sources said that James Powney was considering standing for Harlesden ward, where Helga Gladbaum is not standing again, rather than his present Kensal Green seat where he has been increasingly uncomfortable.

Powney, in the wake of the libraries issue, did badly in the election according to a senior councillor. Overall the results were convincing for the challengers who achieved votes in the high 20s out of the electorate of 41.

Another Brent Executive post challenged ahead of Thursday's hustings

Margaret McLennan

A  further Brent Executive post is to be contested this week with Housing, currently led by Cllr Janice Long, joining the list which includes Children and Families, Customers and Citizens, Environment and Neighbourhoods and Crime and Public Safety. The Housing challenger, Cllr Margaret McLennan (Northwick Park) is not someone normally associated with the so-called 'Young Turks'.

The hustings will be held at Neasden Methodist Church, Neasden Lane (on the roundabout) at 8pm on Thursday and the vote  takes place on Saturday May 11th at the Annual General Meeting.

Although it is generally expected that Muhammed Butt's supporters will do well with allies of former leader Ann John in rather a rut at the moment, one Buttite  member of the current Executive was less confident, remarking that Labour councillors 'are a funny old lot' and hard to predict.

Meanwhile the selection process has begun for Labour's  councillor candidates for 2014 and I have heard that there are 150 expressions of interest for 63 posts, although that has  not been verified.

If it is the case, this is quite remarkable considering the gloomy outlook for local government with the Coalition slowly strangling it in terms of finance and political power.It will be hard to argue next time that 'I didn't come into politics to make cuts'.

Significantly one backbench councillor recently remarked that s/he was seriously thinking about whether they had been more politically effective as a local activist than as a councillor.

Brent Council to provide incentive for council tenants to downsize

With the 'Bedroom Tax' leading to protests across the country and some Labour Councils joining Brighton and Hove Green Council in announcing that they will not evict tenants in arrears solely because of the tax, Brent Council has announced that it will introduce an incentive for tenants to down-size.

So far neither they or their arm's length Brent Housing Partnership have defined what constituents an 'extra bedroom'. Some housing associations have reclassified small extra rooms as boxrooms rather than bedrooms thus avoiding tenants getting caught by the tax.

This is the  proposal to be discussed by the Executive at tonight's Brent Town Hall meeting:

"The Size Criteria, or ‘Bedroom Tax’ will be implemented for underoccupiers of social housing stock from the 1st April 2013, and tenants will receive a reduced amount of Housing Benefit to pay the rent with. Given the current demand on social housing, particularly from homeless households who will be affected by other Welfare Reform measures, transferring underoccupiers to right sized accommodation is favoured, and needs to be encouraged. The currently financial incentive offered to households to motivate the move is a flat rate of £1,000. The proposal is to increase this to £2,000 per bedroom released, per household (to a maximum amount of £6,000) to encourage underoccupiers to move to smaller homes. The cost of providing the increased incentive payments is offset against savings to both the Temporary Accommodation (TA) budget and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA)."

3.333p per minute parking charge to be introduced in Brent

Brent Executive will decide on new proposals for on-street parking charges in the borough. The Officers' report recommends a charge of 20p for stays of up to 15 minutes to encourage turnover of parking places for short shopping trips. This is NOT the first 15 minutes of a longer stay but a quick shop and drive away charge.

For longer stays a 'linear' charge will be introduced of £2 per hour. This will replace the present 'step' charge that sees a stay of 59 minutes cost £2.40 and 61 minutes cost £6. Customers will be able to pay for additional time in  increments of 20p (the smallest practical coinage). 20p will buy an extra 6 minutes.

The report admits that it is hard to predict the impact of the changes which it claims overall represents a reduction in charges.  If more people stay for up to 15 minutes, revenue will be lost.  If the reduced and simpler charges lead to more stays then income will hold up.

Overall  the on-going cost is forecast at £330,000 per year subject to the above uncertainties and will be partially met by the reduction in Word Working allocations.

Butt confirms no 2% council tax rise this year

Mike Bowden, Assistant Director of Brent Finance gave a presentation to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November 2012  that assumed a council tax rise of 3.5% for the 2013-14 council budget LINK. Shortly afterwards Eric Pickles established a requirement for a local referendum if increases were above a 2% threshold. Last year a number of councils of various political hues increased council tax below the 3.5% threshold that existed then.

I understand that there has been discussion in the Brent Executive as to whether to raise Council Tax with the benefit marginal after grant losses and  a reduced collection rate are taken into account. A rise above 2% would have incurred the cost of a local referendum.  It would of course have been another additional cost for people already suffering from benefit cuts and low or frozen wages. An alternative view is that calling the Coalition's bluff and triggering a referendum could result in a proper political debate about the need to adequately fund  local services and the iniquities of the Coalition's grant reduction to local authorities. Only a very small percentage of local government revenue comes from council taxes and charges.

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has confirmed via a Facebook interchange with me that there will not be a 2% rise this year. Asked about a possible lower rise he said that the Council was looking at the settlement figures as part of the budgetary process and considering the offer of the freeze grant.

Brent Executive meets in private after Counihan protest

Following a protest by the Counihan Family Campaign in Committee Rooms 1-2 this evening, the Brent Executive adjourned to another room to meet in private. Although I had a public gallery ticket for the meeting I was not admitted.

Apologies to readers for the lack of a report on the important decisions due to be made tonight.

End the Counihan family's stress. Demonstrate on Monday.

Message from campaigners for the Counihan family.  Their plight will be repeated many times across the borough as the Coalition's housing benefit cap hits more families.

 

 We are coming together to demand justice from Brent Council for the Counihan family, who have been victimised by the actions of our council support agencies. We will be demonstrating outside Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley on Monday July 16th at 6pm ahead of the Brent Council Executive's Meeting. Your support will be appreciated.

Isabel and Anthony Counihan and their five children, Vinnie, Aidan, AJ, Orla and Sarah, have been shunted out of the Brent to temporary housing in Ealing where they have been left since April2011 waiting for the Council to even make a decision on their situation, let alone re-house them in Brent.

Their story is an extreme and devastating example of the way lives are being ruined by benefit cuts, and the refusal to build council housing and regulate the private housing sector.  We are living in times when the powers that be think they can get away with punishing working-class people for the fact of our being poor.

Across London poorer people, especially young people, are being pushed out of the city to make way for the better off. Glenda Jackson MP's response to the family's plight was “you can't afford to live in London”. This has been echoed by council officers: Brent Housing Advice advised the family “they could afford to live in Wales”.

We are saying to Brent Council that they must immediately find the family appropriate, secure and really affordable housing in the borough -and put an end to the unbearable stress and hardship that would have totally broken many people long before now.

The Counihans have nothing to justify -their need is clear and we support them unconditionally -but their story may help illustrate how the council is failing in their moral and legal responsibility to assist people in difficult circumstances, but instead mounting attack after attack to remove people from the area.

We ask you to join us in supporting the Counihans and invite other people facing similar injustices to come forward and challenge together the vicious policies and practices of the council.

For more information, to support the Counihan’s, or raise your own issue contact:

Lesley Ryan -London Irish Centre (personal capacity): 07894 348 610

Gerry Downing -Brent Trades Union Council and Brent Fightback: 07792 966 910

Clarence -Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group: 07752 574 943

Begone you pesky petitioners! Brent downgrades petitioner power.

In a constitutional change to be discussed at the Council meeting on May 16th Brent Council is proposing that petitions of 5,000 or more valid signatures should no longer be debated by full Council and that those containing 2,500  valid signatures should no longer require a senior Council officer to give evidence at an overview and scrutiny committee.

Although the Council says its proposal is  a result of the Localism Act 2012 repealing the requirement for councils to adopt a petition scheme and leaving it to the discretion of each authority, there can be little doubt that the Labour Council has been irritated by the petitions organised by the Hindu community over festival funding, library campaigners over the closure of half of Brent's libraries and Keep Willesden Green over the Willesden Green Library Regeneration proposals. The latter was particularly controversial when Democratic Services  refused to hold a Full Council meeting on the issue.

The Council argues that this change will 'make the process more transparent' and will 'direct petitions to the decision maker as set out in the current Standing Order 68(e).

That Standing Order refers to petitions with 50 or more signatures and refers the petitions on upcoming decisions  to the Executive or the General Purposes Committee who can 'make recommendations concerning the petition to Full Council'.

As far as I can see this continues the erosion of democracy in Brent Council removing further citizen's ability to make representations to Full Council rather than the rubber-stamping Labour Executive.  If I was a backbench councillor of whatever political party I would be asking some awkward questions on the issue.