When is complaint not a complaint? – Part 2 Is there a 'cover up culture' at Brent Council

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Opening paragraphs of Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September 2024.

 

On 2 October, Martin published my guest post “Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?” The email of 27 September above from Brent’s Chief Executive had been sent in response to my request for her to conduct a Final Review of the formal complaint I had made on 30 August. I requested that as I was not satisfied with the initial reply of 9 September from a Corporate Director, which did not even mention the word “complaint”.

 

The grounds for my complaint were detailed in a guest post a month earlier, “Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award”. Briefly, they were that the Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, and the recommendation to make the award under Option B, were biased, and that the main author of that report had an undisclosed conflict of interests, which had only come to light months later.

 

 I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the Council’s decision not to treat my “concerns” as a formal complaint, which had apparently made before the first response to that complaint on 9 September, and what evidence it had been based on. I requested some details in an email to Kim Wright on 11 October (the text is in the comments section under the 2 October guest post). The Council decided to treat this as an FoI request, and I received the response to that on 11 November.

 

If the information provided is correct (and you would expect it to be, as the response came from a Senior Brent Council Lawyer), the decision (that my formal complaint was not a complaint) was made between 30 September and 3 October, after the Chief Executive had told me of the decision.

 

In reply to my questions about what information the decision had been based on, that the matter I’d formally complained about ‘had not affected me personally’, and ‘had not caused me an injustice’, the response in both cases was: ‘Please refer to council officer’s emails sent to you dated 27/9 and 3/10.’ In other words, if Brent’s Chief Executive said that I had not suffered any personal injustice as a result of actions by the Council, or one of its Officers, that was sufficient evidence on which to base a decision justifying her claim!

 

Extract from Brent’s FoI response of 11 November 2024.

 

The response had already told me that the (apparently retrospective!) decision had been made by ‘The Complaints and Casework Manager in conjunction with the Corporate Director, Law & Governance.’ My final request had been for ‘any documentary evidence relating to’ the decision, and ‘any communications, and any advice sought or given, in respect of it.’ I was informed that the only documents were Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September and the Council’s Complaints Policy (a copy of which was attached). ‘No further communication is held.’

 

I have set this out in detail so that any reader who is interested can see how Brent Council operates. If it does not want to deal with a complaint, it says that it is not a complaint, without having to provide any evidence. It hopes that you will give up and go away, rather than admitting that something has been done wrongly, and trying to put it right! 

 

Anyone who knows me will realise that I am not put off by such tactics. This is the full text of an open email which I sent to Brent’s Chief Executive on 12 November:-

 

This is an Open Email

Dear Ms Wright,

 

Further to my email of 25 September, requesting a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint to you of 30 August 2024 (see copy attached), you will have seen my Internal Review request (sent yesterday evening) to the FoI response of 11 November, to the questions I raised in my email to you of 11 October.

 

This is getting complicated, and is taking up quite a lot of Senior Council Officer time. The reason for that is that you and other Council Officers appear to be trying to "give me the run-around", hoping that I will give up, so that you do not have to deal with a perfectly reasonable and genuine complaint that I raised.

 

This latest letter, from Brent's Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, exposes that there is no valid basis in evidence to show why Brent Council should not treat my complaint of 30 August as a complaint within the Council's Complaints Policy.

 

It appears from her FoI response that the "decision", 'that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure', set out in your email to me of 27 September, was not made until several days after you had sent that email, rather than before Minesh Patel's original email reply, in your absence on leave, of 9 September, which is what you had suggested.

 

And that "decision", for which there is no documentary evidence, appears to have been founded solely on a claim in your email of 27 September that: 'In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised.'

 

There was no supporting evidence for that claim. In fact, you already knew that the open tender process for the new advertising lease from 31 August 2024, seeking best value for the Council, with separate bids that would give the opportunity for Cabinet to properly consider the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, had been my suggestion in 2021, which had been accepted by your predecessor, Carolyn Downs.

 

The process was meant to be fair and transparent, and I had put in a great deal of effort to try to ensure that it was. My complaint (there can be no other valid description for it) was that the Report and recommendation, which Cabinet accepted, had been biased, and that its main author had an undisclosed conflict of interests. How could that not affect me personally, or give rise to an injustice, not just to the people who signed the petition which I presented on 28 May, but to me personally?

 

I would ask you again to carry out a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint of 30 August, in the hope that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved without my having to refer it to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

In answer to another FoI request, which I received on 14 October, I was told that the new advertising lease agreement between the Council and Quintain from 31 August 2024 had not yet been signed. If that is still the case, then my suggested remedy No.1 still applies (as does the second suggested remedy in my open letter of 30 August attached).

 

I look forward to receiving your reply. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

The Leader Foreword from the Cabinet Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease report, 28 May 2024.
(The “supplier” referred to is Quintain Ltd, through its Wembley Park subsidiary)

 

You will notice a reference to some other FoI requests I made, to which I have received some partial responses. Among the information gleaned on the Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting is that the “Leader Forward” in it was not actually written by Cllr. Muhammed Butt himself (but by the Officer with the alleged undisclosed conflict of interests):

 

‘The foreword for the report was discussed by the Leader and Head of Communications, Conference and Events at a face-to-face meeting and the steer the Leader provided was included in the report and cleared by the Leader.’

 

My request for ‘copies of all email or other documentary contacts between the Contact Officers and the Leader … in the preparation of the Report’, was denied. The reason given was that:

 

‘complying with this request would exceed the cost limit set by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under Section 12 of the Act, public authorities are not required to comply with requests if the estimated time to locate, retrieve, and extract the requested information would take more than 18 hours.’

 

I doubt whether it would cost that much to provide the relevant emails etc between two people from 1 April and 14 May 2024, so I have asked for an Internal Review of that response!

 

There was an Appendix to the Report, headed "Advertising Lease Bid Evaluation", and I had also asked for ‘all the information in that Appendix 1 which was not exempt information.’ That request has also been refused:

 

‘The appendix includes commercially sensitive details related to an ongoing procurement process, as well as market-sensitive information. The public interest in keeping this information confidential outweighs the interest in disclosing it, as premature disclosure could harm the commercial interests of the bidders and the council.’

 

But the procurement process is not ongoing (it ended at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May!), and I had only requested the non-exempt information, not any commercially sensitive details. Again, I’ve asked for an Internal Review of this response. What is Brent Council trying to hide?

 

I feel that the treatment I have received in trying to pursue my complaint demonstrates a “cover-up culture” at Brent Council, which appears to go right to the top of the organisation. That is not a healthy state of affairs, especially for a public body paid for at our expense!

 

Philip Grant.

 

1 Morland Gardens – Brent should rethink whether contract is lawful

Guesr Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

1 Morland Gardens, June 2022.

 

Two weeks ago, in a guest post giving Brent Council’s response to me stating that the award of the latest contract for their Morland Gardens project was lawful, I mentioned that I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. This was to obtain what should have been the supporting evidence for the views set out by Brent’s Legal Director.

 

For those of you interested in the way that Brent Council carries out its business on our behalf, and in the continuing saga of the Brent’s plans to demolish the locally listed Italianate Victorian villa, “Altamira” (above), this is the latest position.

 

I have received a full response to my FoI request from Brent Council, and will ask Martin to attach a copy of this at the end of this article. The rest of this post is the full text of an open email which I sent to Brent’s Legal Director on 18 August.

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Whether the 14 July 2022 decision to award the Morland Gardens contract breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR 2015”).

 

In your reply of 1 August, to my email on this subject of 18 July, you wrote:

 

‘I would confirm that reference in my previous email to Regulation 33(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) was indeed to Regulation 33(8)(a) and that when inviting a single contractor to bid from the Network Homes Contractor Framework (Framework), the Council complied with its obligations under Part 2 of the PCR 2015 in accordance with Regulation 37(6)(c).’

 

Later in that email, you replied to my suggestion that the award had not complied with Regulation 18 of PCR 2015 (see below), writing: 

 

‘As it is considered that the direct award procedure set out in Schedule 1 of the Framework was used appropriately, it is not accepted that the award has been made with the intention of unduly favouring one economic operator.’

 

I have highlighted parts of the quoted replies above, and would ask you to reconsider them, in the light of the following information.

 

My response to your reply, also on 1 August, included a Freedom of Information Act request. I have now received the information requested, and attach a pdf copy of the Brent Council response, and the Direct Award Evaluation Process (“DAEP”) document which was supplied with it.

 

The DAEP document makes clear that there were ten contractors within Lot 3 of the Network Homes Contractor Framework (“NHCF”), all of whom would have met the Council’s requirements for being invited to tender for the contract, if it had been a competitive tender process. 

 

Of those ten contractors, seven were also contractors under the Notting Hill Genesis Framework (“NHGF”), which had been used for the previous two attempts to award a contract for the Morland Gardens Development. Those seven had been invited to tender for the previous contracts. But there were three contractors within Lot 3 of the NHCF who had never been invited to tender for this project.

 

In your email of 1 August you wrote that:

 

‘the other contractors on the framework did not have the resources available to meet the timescales the council required in order to meet the GLA grant funding requirement to be in contract and the project beginning in August 2022 and did not have the same level of knowledge and experience of, or relationship to the project site.’

 

I would refer you to question 4 of my FoI request, about contacts with the other contractors within Lot 3 of the NHCF, to find out whether they had the resources to meet the Council’s timescale. This was the answer:

 

‘As described in the Direct Award Evaluation Process attachment as part of the response to query no.3, no other contractors on the framework were contacted.’

 

The relevant sentence in the DAEP document is:

 

‘It should be noted that the other 9 suppliers on the framework were not checked for capacity (3.1.2), previous performance (3.1.3) and resource availability (3.1.4).’

 

Even if it were assumed that the other contractors on the NHGF, who had been given the opportunity to bid in the previous Morland Gardens tender processes, in 2020 and 2021, could be discounted, by failing to contact the other three NHCF Lot 3 contractors about whether they would be interested in bidding for the latest tender process, I believe that Brent Council has failed to treat those ‘economic operators equally and without discrimination’, as required by Regulation 18 (1).

 

I also believe that the answer to question 6 of my FoI request, about Brent Council’s contacts with Hill Partnerships Ltd over a possible contract award under the NHCF, shows there was a clear breach of Regulation 18(3). This was the answer:

 

‘The Council contacted Hill Partnerships Ltd via phone call during the week of 30 May 2022. They confirmed that they had available resources to start in August and that they continued to be interested in this scheme and would submit a bid should the Council issue a further invitation to tender. They confirmed the frameworks they were on so the Council could undertake its due diligence on the frameworks as a potential route to market.’

 

This confirms that Brent Council, having discovered that it had run out of time to award a Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd under the second NHGF tender process, set out to find a way to award a contract to them under a different framework. Having found out from this contractor which frameworks they were approved for, the Council’s ‘due diligence’ was to find a framework which allowed them to make a direct award of the new Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd, and to make it quickly.

 

The procurement process, which Cabinet approved on 20 June, was designed ‘with the intention of unduly favouring’ one particular economic operator, Hill Partnerships Ltd.

I look forward to receiving your response to this open email, and to learning how Brent Council intends to deal with what appears to be an unlawful contract awarded for its Morland Gardens project. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Regulation 18 of PCR 2015:

‘Principles of procurement

18. (1) Contracting authorities shall treat economic operators equally and without discrimination and shall act in a transparent and proportionate manner.

(2) The design of the procurement shall not be made with the intention of excluding it from the scope of this Part or of artificially narrowing competition.

(3) For that purpose, competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.’

 

 

 

Good Law Project issues judicial review after contracting authority ‘unlawfully’ awarded £70bn public sector net zero procurement process

 Good Law Project  has filed a judicial review against contracting authority East of England Broadband Network (E2BN) after it handed over a £70 billion procurement process to a Cornwall-based ‘micro-company’ specialising in education services.

 

E2BN’s ‘Everything Net Zero’ is a framework agreement that offers the UK’s entire public sector, from the NHS to local government offices, a way to award contracts even loosely connected to ‘climate’ issues without having to comply with the usual rules about public procurement. Despite covering up to £70 billion, management of the framework agreement has been handed over to just one company  - a consultancy called Place Group, listed by Companies House as a ‘micro-company’ run by two directors in Penzance, Cornwall, with net assets of just under £350,000.

 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said:

 

The drive to achieve Net Zero is one of the most important challenges the UK faces today.  Why was E2BN, ‘a regional broadband consortium’, allowed to write such a poor example of a framework agreement and to make a decision that could have such a far-reaching impact on the UK’s climate response? Why did they decide to outsource control over billions of pounds in emissions reductions contracts to the Place Group, a tiny company whose main experience seems to be in the education sector?  Why was Place Group the only company to submit a tender? These are vital questions the public deserves to have an answer to and which E2BN has so far refused to answer.

 

Good Law Project is bringing this action as E2BN’s decisions and conduct in respect of the Everything Net Zero Framework appear to be in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. As it currently stands, it seems that billions of pounds worth of public contracts could be awarded by the Place Group to unspecified suppliers without open, transparent and fair competition. GLP has asked the Court to hold proceedings for a month to give E2BN another chance to provide proper answers.

 

In July, GLP along with Joanna Wheatley, Client Earth and Friends of the Earth successfully sued the Government over its strategy for delivering on its Net Zero targets, on the basis proposals were too vague and lacked enough detail.  GLP will continue to campaign for accountability and transparency where the Government’s approach to the climate crisis is concerned, including its procurement process.  

 

Show you are tackling climate change if you want a Brent Council contract

 Brent Council Press Release

Businesses will need to show how they are tackling climate change and working towards zero carbon emissions by 2030 when bidding for Brent Council contracts under new procurement rules introduced this week.

 

The council’s new Procurement Sustainability Policy aims to utilise Brent’s huge purchasing power by requiring potential new suppliers to demonstrate how they tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and waste; minimising the use of resources; promoting the circular economy; improving air quality; and enhancing green spaces and biodiversity.

 

All applicable tenders will now include a sustainability assessment to identify how they will reduce Brent’s environmental impact and support sustainability commitments, which will form part of legally binding contracts awarded to successful bidders.

 

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

The council spends around £400 million every year on goods and services, so we have a great opportunity to use this spending power to make Brent greener and get closer to zero carbon emissions.

 

This is about us putting our money where our mouth is. Improving environmental sustainability through the suppliers we work with is essential if we are going reach the ambitious targets we have set ourselves. By working together, we can all make a difference, and create a greener borough for everyone.

 

The Procurement Sustainability Policy links into the council’s Procurement Strategy 2020-2023 priorities to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits for Brent.

 

•             Procurement Sustainability Policy

•             Procurement Strategy 2020-2023

Procurement to be brought back 'in house' after joint service fails to deliver the goods

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a proposal to bring procurement back in-house after a joint service with Harrow failed to deliver the envisaged benefits. A shared service with Harrow and Buckinghamshire was first discussed in January 2016 and at the time I noted the lack of clarity in the proposals LINK.  Officers claimed that a joint service would save Brent £272,000 in 2016-17.

Buckinghamshire dropped out and in  September 2016 Brent Tuped staff over to the joint Harrow-Brent  service followed by Brent Housing Partnership staff just over a year later in October 2017. Now less than 18 months after the first transfers they will be transferred back to Brent.

The Officers' report LINK recognise that this doesn't look good:

Reputational damage: To end the Shared Service so early into its life could potentially be seen as a failure by a range of stakeholders and potentially cause some reputational damage although this should be mitigated by getting member level approval for the dissolution.

The report suggests that the recent resignation of the Harrow Divisional Director of Procurement and Contracts gives an opportunity to review whether to continue the Shared Service and recognises that a decision to end it is best done before the arrangement between the two boroughs becomes more entwined and complex - a case of 'get out now before it's too late!'

The report states:

We are now just over 1 year into the Shared Service and a number of difficulties have been identified. At present Brent requires a level of service that is beyond the resourcing initially envisaged by the parties and available within the funds contributed to the Share Service following the restructure.

In addition it has proved difficult to recruit to many posts in the shared structure and continuity has been difficult to maintain. This has put additional pressure on the Shared Service and levels if service and satisfaction are therefore below what some service areas are expecting.

Reading beyond the mild civil service language it is clear that the joint service was just not paying people enough. Rather than the savings first envisaged it looks likely that costs will increase:

Despite a lengthy recruitment exercise, the ability of the Shared Service to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced staff into a number of vacancies has proved to be challenging. The poor recruitment results are thought to be in the main due to the salaries on offer being £5k below the market average together with a buoyant London jobs market for those individuals.

The regeneration/development area is significantly under-resourced. Although the Shared Service has flexed some resources to support this area. This is barely adequate and not sustainable in the long term. Consideration therefore needs to be given to interim resource(s) to support Capital projects (funded by the Capital programme) over and above the business as usual resourcing requirement.

The report states that for the Shared Serviced to meet these short-comings there would need to be a Head of Procurement dedicated to Brent and a rise of approximately £5k for each of the non-management grades totalling an additional annual contribution of £150,000.

The report is notably vague about the costs of leaving the Shared Service:

Should Brent leave the Shared Service the financial implications would need to be developed as the new organisational structure is designed. Initial  estimates however envisage that it would be of similar magnitude to remaining in the Shared Service.

Any increase in budget will have to be offset by a saving elsewhere in the department, the Council (sic) including greater achievement of procurement savings.

If the original proposal to enter a Shared Service lacked clarity then it appears that the proposal to leave has similar shortcomings, particularly on the financial implications. Can the Cabinet make a decision on the basis of this flawed report?

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.

Government 'shutdown of local democratic space' condemned

War on Want has issued the following statement regarding the  Newcastle City Council motion on local authority pennions and procurement policy:
 

War on Want welcomes the news that Newcastle City Council has voted to approve a motion opposing the government’s latest attack on local democracy.

The motion was passed unanimously, with full cross party support, at a recent council meeting. It is now official Newcastle City Council policy.

In November 2015, the government announced a proposal to block local councils from deciding how to invest their pension funds. Under the new plan, the government will have the power to veto investment decisions made locally on ethical grounds concerning human rights, arms trade, fossil fuels and much else.

Councillor Mick Bowman, North Heaton ward, said: 

This vindictive and ideologically motivated proposal, reminiscent of the­­­ notorious Clause 28 introduced by the Tories in 1988, is a blanket attempt to prevent local councils from having an ethical procurement and pensions investment policy.

Newcastle is a city with a proud commitment to human rights and many local councillors are active in social justice campaigns, including the movement for justice for Palestine, and we are determined to do whatever we can to block this proposal.

Ryvka Barnard, Senior Militarism and Security Campaigner at War on Want, said:

Newcastle City Council is fighting back, as are councils across the country, rightly concerned by the government’s attack on democracy and local decision making.

So much for George Osborne’s so called ‘devolution revolution’. The government’s action has consistently failed to match its rhetoric when it comes to localism and devolving power. This plan amounts to a shutdown of local democratic space and is a dangerous threat to the growing power of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to end UK complicity in Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Over 10,000 people have responded to the government consultation, rejecting the proposal.
The ‘Protect Local Democracy’ campaign, initiated by War on Want, has been endorsed by a broad range of groups concerned with the human rights and environmental implications of the proposal. UNISON has also expressed concern that the proposal will deny pension scheme members their right to have their pension funds invested in their best interests.