Wembly Central petition Brent Council for more action on rubbish and flytipping

The Green Party and Brent Fightback long ago forecast dirty streets LINK  as a result of cuts to street cleaning and other services and the decision to make the contractor Veolia responsible for monitoring its own performance.  More recently I have also had comments regarding the maintenance of parks which is also part of Veolia's empire.  As a result of the Veolia taking over Brent's Public Realm the Environment Department of the Council has been severely cut LINK.

Wembley Central residents have now launched a public online petition to Brent Council and Muhammed Butt calling for action LINK

The petition reads:
 

--> We the undersigned petition Brent Council to resolve the issue of unacceptable amounts of rubbish being dumped on our streets.  The dumped rubbish is anti-social, it causes potential health hazards by attracting rats and other vermin to our streets and it affects the well-being of responsible residents, whilst making the area unwelcoming to visitors.

We call on Brent Council to implement the following 6 point plan to clean up Wembley Central:

1.      We call on Brent Council to put in place measures which prevent rubbish being dumped on our streets and to fully publicise what these measures are.

2.      We call on Brent Council to strongly enforce existing laws and regulations against those who litter, those who dump rubbish/fly-tip and those who do not manage their waste properly on private land.

3.      We call on Brent Council to raise awareness of this problem, stressing that it will no longer be tolerated, through an education program including posters and leafleting, whilst engaging with local landlords, businesses, schools, colleges and places of worship.

4.      We call on Brent Council to respond to genuine complaints from residents in a timely and respectful manner.

5.      We call on Brent Council to pro-actively combat the effects of recent multi-occupancy housing on the existing local community.  Each landlord licence would generate £400 per property.  This income must be invested to regulate and enforce regulations.

6.      We call on Brent Council to issue financial penalties against Veolia where the service fails to meet the required standard.

For too long the Council have ignored our complaints about rubbish in our area and they need to take immediate and long term action to solve this problem.

On the petition sight Cllr Sam Stopp (Labour, Brent Central) writes:

The cleanliness of our streets is the measure of our community spirit.

To rebuild community spirit, we must first remove the blight of dumping from our streets.

Fo! about FoI to Brent Council results in no information held!

It is rather odd that a Brent Labour councillor has to resort to a Freedom of Information request to his own Council about their performance regarding Freedom of Information requests. This is what Cllr Dan Filson did on Thursday. He got a response the next day which is amazing, However he did get fobbed off like the rest of us often are:

I am still waiting for the answer to an FoI request made on November 28th 2014. I hasd heard that the maintenance of large trees had been left out of the Publc Realm contract in which Veolia took over parks maintenance. It had been suggested to me that this was an oversight that would result in additional expenditure.

This is the  response to my intial request:

 1. State who is responsible for safety checks, maintenance, felling and replacement
of trees in Brent's parks, open spaces and cemeteries.

The Contractor is only responsible for minor tree works which can be carried out
whilst working at ground level. The Council is responsible for major tree works.
Grounds maintenance staff from Veolia and the Council’s monitoring officers
(horticulture) would look at trees when they are working in the park or carrying out
monitoring visits. The Coucnil would then engage specialist contractors to carry out
the major works.

My follow-up which is still awaiting a response:

-->

1.     Is the cost of major tree works by a sub-contractor included in
the Public Realm budget out-sourced to Veolia?

2.    If not, what is the expected annual cost of this sub-contracted
work (recognising it might vary considerably due to major weather
events such as storms)?

BREAKING NEWS: Having posted this article at the weekend I got this answer about 9.30am this morning:

 1: No
2: The Council’s street trees maintenance contractor is Gristwood & Toms. The budget for street tree maintenance works was £500,000 in 2014/15, but this is expected to fall to £450,000 in 2015/16.


 

Will Brent's 'garden tax' lead to more Birmingham style fly-tipping?

Green waste dumped by the roadside in Birmingham

The KilburnTimes LINK is reporting that the Council's proposed charge for recycling green waste revealed on this blog last week will be an annual fee of £40.

Brent councillors and officers would be wise to look at what happened in Birmimgham in May when a £35 charge was introduced by that Labour Council.

Initially only 20,000 of the city's 400,000 households signed up to pay the charge and there were mile long queues of angry drivers at city recycling depots LINK

Green waste was fly-tipped by residents wanting to avoid the charge and it became an issue in the local elections. 

Just before the election bin men were allegedy told to clear up all the dumped green waste according to the Birmingham Mail LINK:

But now binmen have allegedly been told to clear the streets of ALL abandoned green waste this weekend, whether householders have paid for the controversial scheme or not.

Senior GMB shop steward Paul Langley, based at Perry Barr depot, told the Mail: “All the dumped garden rubbish is going to be picked up this weekend – just before the election.

“Our overtime has been cut and now our crews are being told to collect it all. It means the 40,000 people who have paid for a green waste bin and those who have simply dumped their rubbish are getting the same service.

“I have just spoken to a manager and he has confirmed it.”

The proposed charges follow the awarding of the multi-million Public Realm contract to Veolia which is due to take parks maintenance from next month in addition to recycling, residual waste collection, street sweeping and BHP grounds maintenance. Councillors claimed at the time that the new contract would save public money and there was no mention of introducing charges for basic services.

This opens the way for other charges for basic services in addition to what we pay in Council Tax.

At the same time as introducing this charge the Council is also considering landlord licensing which amongst other things is aimed at the 'anti-social' issue of untidy and poorly maintained front gardens. The £40 charge hardly seems an incentive to tackle this issue.

And of course we have the Council's anti-fly tipping campaign while this policy looks likely to increase the amount of illegal fly-tipping adding garden waste to the builders' waste currently common on our streets.

Cllr Perrin, new lead member for the environment needs to look at this again.

Brent Council ignorant of how many of their contractors pay below London Living Wage or use Zero Hours contracts

Brent Council's commitment to paying the London Living Wage was very welcome but as pointed out in previous postings that is problematic because the Council has very few directly employed manual and service  workers now that so many of its services are contracted out. The same caveat applies to zero hours contracts, also opposed by the Council, but when some out-sourced Civic Centre security staff are employed on a zero hours basis.

The Council has urged local schools and private businesses to pay the London Living Wage and the new Public Realm contract includes a requirement that  Veolia  pay the LWW. The Council in a November press released stated:

We have also agreed to build LLW considerations into our procurement process for contracts and, over a three-year period, will review the bulk of contracts with a positive view to applying LLW.

Again this is welcome although the continued emphasis on 'best value' (often the lowest bid) introduces a tension at a time of massive funding cuts. There is increasing recognition that by lifting local wages the Council will eventually be better off as families are lifted out of poverty and thus less reliant on benefits, including Council Tax Support.

Given all this I was surprised to receive a negative response from Brent Council to my  Freedom of Information request asking for details of how many of the staff employed by the Council via contractors and sub-contractors are on zero hours contracts and paid less than the London Living Wage. After they refused the request I asked for a review and now have a response (below) - which amounts to another refusal .

What concerns me is that if the Council is concerned about the London Living Wage and poverty among Brent residents, it is surely their responsibility to ensure that those employed on their behalf have decent wages and conditions. In terms of budget planning it is also essential to know the cost of bringing those workers up to the LWW and that can only be done through  knowing how many people are involved.

If there is to be evidence based forward planning and decision making it is essential to have high quality information. I had a similar experience regarding school places when the Council refused my request for the number of pupils on Brent school waiting lists who were duplicates - i.e.the same child on waiting lists for several schools.Again essential information on assessing unmet demand and potential school expansions.

Here is the Council's ruling on my Zero Hours/London Living Wage request:

We have reviewed the decision to refuse your request for information under The Freedom of Information Act. Your request related to information that would establish how many staff who work for or on behalf of the Council through a contractor were employed on a zero hours basis and how many were paid the London Living Wage.

That request was refused as the information requested was not held by the Council. You were dissatisfied with that request on the basis that the Council had been critical of such arrangements and would not use a zero hours scheme with its own staff and had made a policy position that the London Living Wage should be paid to all Council staff as a minimum. We have now reviewed the decision to refuse the request and I can inform you of the outcome.
  
It is correct to say that the Council does not hold this information and as such can not readily supply it to you.  It may be possible to contact all of the contractors that the Council engages with but when the number of those contractors are considered and the time involved in obtaining the information you have requested is taken into account this would be a major exercise.
  
The Council would have to identify all current contracts on which staff are employed by the contractor which would, in effect, be nearly if not all of the contractors that are used. This in itself is an enormous piece of work. Once identified contact would have to be made with all of those contractors which would be hundreds of individual contacts. This again would be an enormous piece of work to accurately undertake. Collating the information would also take a significant amount of time.
  
Our view is that the time involved in obtaining the information would be in excess of 18 hours of officer time. Under the Act a request can be refused in the event that the cost of complying with it would exceed the cost limit set out in legislation. The applicable regulations provide that in assessing whether the cost limit has been reached officer time should be assessed at £25 per hour and the overall limit of cost being £450.

Given that the cost here would require in excess of 18 hours of officer time it is clearly over the cost limit set out in the Act. The Executive has taken the decision that any request that breaches the cost limit should be refused.

If the Council is to conduct a 3 year review as their November press release stated then this is precisely the information that will be needed.  Meanwhile, as residents, we have no way of knowing how many of the workers providing our services are on zero hours contracts with little or no pension or sick pay rights, or employed on rock bottom wages.

It's simple: my taxes should not go to a war profiteer like Veolia

Presentation by Dan Judelson of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and a Labour Party member to Brent Executive 14 October 2013. The Executive voted to give the 9 year multi-million Public Realm contract to Veolia.

Collecting waste is one of the most basic, fundamental responsibilities of a council. Ask someone what they want in terms of local services and chances are high that they will begin any such list with “empty my bins.”

Over the last three and a half decades, there has been an enormous change in the delivery of these services and a particular upshot of that is that a waste collection contract may now be part of a lucrative business.

So it is entirely understandable that Brent residents should ask questions about where council money is being spent. One of the bidders – the remaining bidder – for this public realm contract is part of a company that derives income directly form illegal activity.

I do not want to rehash in detail all of the arguments about how this happens; I know councillors and executive members will already be aware of much of this thanks to the debate over the past few months. Yet it is worth reminding ourselves of the basics of what happens at the Tovlan landfill site, operated by Veolia, in the Jordan Valley.

It handles waste from illegal Israeli settlements on land that would form part of the putative Palestinian state. Not a pennyworth of licence fee is paid by Veolia to the Palestinian authority for this privilege. In the meantime, Israeli institutions from the government to the Army to local settlers are actively trying to take over and control the Jordan Valley.

The government of Israel financially promotes illegal settlement in the Jordan Valley. According to the Israeli NGO B’tselem ,”the average grant per capita to Israeli settlers in the West bank [has been] approximately 57% higher than the average expenditure per capita for Israeli citizens inside Israel.”

Furthermore, the head of the Jordan Valleys settlers group has stated explicitly that “Approving the programme [of expansion] will change the face of the Jordan Valley beyond recognition – beyond recognition – and attract returning sons and families from outside to come to the region. Although a political cloud – an interesting euphemism – hangs over the region, this is the way to attract residents. (Italics mark my emphasis.)

So it is crucial to recognise that we are not talking about some abstract or vague connection with illegal activity. Operation of the Tovlan site contributes directly to sustaining illegal settlements and their expansion in the Jordan Valley, something that has been acknowledged as illegal by governments around the world – including that of Israel – since at least 1968.

These are issues that have been raised during the campaign but I raise them now because they leave a number of questions unanswered.

1. We have heard that Brent Council Procurement and Legal Services have been determined to exclude such political factors from the bidding process on the basis of a legal opinion but we have heard also that this advice has been embargoed. Brent Council has to explain, why the exclusion, why the embargo?

2. We have heard, too, about the potential for legal action from Veolia should they be excluded from the bidding process. Yet they have been excluded or have not been awarded contracts in the West Midlands, in Ealing, Richmond and East Sussex. They have been denied business in Dublin. Utrecht and The Hague – not to mention, far closer to home, the North and the West London Waste Authorities. I would like to know if Brent Council consulted with any of these bodies to try ad establish the ground on which these contracts were not awarded or the bidder excluded from the tendering process.

3. Current EU guidelines state that the EU will not enter into any contract or relationship with a company or organisation that operates in the illegally occupied West Bank. This is sure to affect EU law across the 27 states over the duration of the public realm contract being discussed here tonight. Has this factor been considered by the council executive?

4. Given what we know about Veolia’s operations in the West Bank, what consideration has been given to attaching conditions or riders to this very long contract, offering Veolia an opportunity to divest itself of the illegal operations we have heard about tonight.

Councillors, there are members of the Green Party, the Labour Party, of Stop the War, of Brent PSC and I myself am a signatory of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. But we are here tonight to decide the best course of action for Brent residents no matter what their political allegiance of campaign affiliation.

Hello. My name is Dan Judelson. I have lived in Algernon Road, Kilburn for the past 15 years and as a Brent resident and council-tax payer, I object most strenuously to my taxes going to fill the coffers of a war profiteer like Veolia. It’s as simple as that.

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

Hundreds urge Brent to exclude Veolia from Public Realm contract

Around 40 human rights demonstrators gathered outside Brent Civic Centre last night as a petition signed by hundred of Brent residents was presented to the Brent Executive calling for Veolia to be excluded from the Public Realm contract procurement process. The contract worth up to £250m over 16 years will be awarded by the Brent Executive at their October 14th meeting.

Exclusion is sought on the grounds that Veolia in its operations in the occupied territories of Palestine is colluding in the maintenance of illegal settlements and this infringing the human rights of Palestinians.

Veolia has been short-listed alongside Enterprise and Serco for the contract.

After hearing the speech from Liz Lindsay, Secretary of Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity and an activist in the Bin Veolia in Brent Campaign, the Executive referred the petition to FionaLedden, head of procurement for consideration.

Liz Lindsay's speech was warmly applauded from the crowded public gallery.

THE CASE AGAINST VEOLIA'S INCLUSION IN THE 

BRENT PUBLIC REALM PROCUREMENT

Just as pension funds are concerned about ethical investment we believe the council should be concerned about ethical procurement. 

The public would not want the council   to give contracts to companies involved in the exploitation of child labour or the arms trade.

Veolia who are bidding for the Public Realm contract are serving the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The UK Govt and UN do not recognise Israel’s annexation of the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Veolia helps support Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land by

• Supporting the Jerusalem Light Rail between West Jerusalem and an illegal settlement
• Running bus routes along the Apartheid road 443 that link illegal Israeli  settlements .
• Owning  the Tovlan landfill site that takes refuse from illegal settlements and Israel.

Veoila therefore profits by actively supporting Israel’s continued violation of international humanitarian law

 

Under Public Contracts Regulations, a public body may exclude a bidder or reject a bid where it is found the organisation has ‘committed grave misconduct in the course of their business’

In 2009, the UN General Assembly called on Israel to cease the dumping of waste  in occupied Palestinian land.

In 2010, UK was one of countries that voted in support of the UNHR Council resolution that stated JLR operated by Veolia is in clear violation of International Law and relevant UN resolutions.

In 2012, Richard Falk UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the OPT concludes that

– Veolia’s grave breaches of the UN Global Compact make it an inappropriate partner for any public institution, especially as a provider of public services.

Also, Veolia was forced to withdraw JLR recruitment advertisements because they discriminated against Palestinians.

Locally,  WLWA, Ealing, Harrow, Richmond did not select Veolia as the preferred bidder and all had been involved in discussions with anti-Veolia campaigners.

Veolia withdrew after 2 years from the final stages of the £4.5bn NLWA procurement when they were one of only two bidders left.

As Veolia has become the target of worldwide campaigns, Veolia  has tried to waive responsibility, claiming in 2011 for example that it had sold Tovlan. 

However,  on the 17^th Jan 2013, the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection –in response to FOI by a Women's Peace Group in Tel Aviv confirmed that Veolia is the sole owner and operator of Tovlan.

We informed Brent Council of this on the 14^th March but Veolia repeated its claim on 21^st May 2013.

The Council does not appear to have challenged this misrepresentation. 

In June 2013, an Israeli Court fined Veolia 1.5 million shekels for burying mixed waste to avoid higher fees and for keeping inconsistent records.

Brent Council should seriously question any information that Veolia provides in its defence in its bid to win the contract.

One argument used against exclusion has been that Veolia in Israel and in the UK are separate entities. There is ample evidence available that Veolia is one commercial entity. 

Also, Justin Brazier, Tory MP, facilitated a meeting between Veolia Executive, Robert Hunt and Canterbury Campaigners at which Robert Hunt confirmed that Veolia was one commercial entity. 

Francis Maude on the 23^rd May, 2012 stated explicitly,  regarding illegal settlements that companies that have committed ‘an act of grave professional misconduct in the course of their business may be excluded from a tender exercise’

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR BRENT COUNCIL?

Brent Council is particularly proud of representing a diverse population and is committed to equality and opposed to racism as demonstrated recently by their stand against the 'racist van' and the UKBA raids. 

Human rights issues are at the core of the Council's values.

Our campaign has been supported by members from many religions and non-religious residents, by members of the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties, by Brent TUC, trade unions,  GCs of Brent Central,  and Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Parties and local members of Jews for Justice for Palestinians.

We call on the Executive to take a principled stand on the issue of Veolia's collusion in the abuse of the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories and to take action by excluding Veolia from the £260m Public Realm contract.

Bishop Tutu said what he saw in occupied Palestine could describe apartheid South Africa.. Nelson Mandela, now a Freeman of Brent, said he would not be truly free until the Palestinian people are free. Respect them -  BIN VEOLIA!.

Controversial Veolia Public Realm decision to be made at October Executive

Tomorrow the petition against Veolia being given the £250m plus Brent Public Realm contract will be presented to the Executive at the Civic Centre. The Bin Veolia campaign will be given 5 minutes to speak to the petition at the beginning of the meeting and there will be a demonstration of supporters outside the Civic Centre from 6.30pm.

Overnight the Council released  information that the Executive will make their decision at their October 14th meeting:

ITEM
To award the contract for public realm services including waste, recycling, street cleaning, winter gritting and grounds maintenance for Brent Council land and Brent Housing Partnership parks and open spaces and approve any consequential recommendations.

The campaign for Veolia's exclusion is based on the claim that their activities in the Occupied Territories of Palestine provide infrastructural support for the illegal settlements and that this amounts to 'grave misconduct'.

In June an Israeli court fined TMM Integrated Recycling Industries, owned by Veolia, NIS 1.5m for burying waste after finding inconsistencies between the company's reports on the amount of waste it had handled - and for which it had to pay a fee - and the actual amounts disposed of.

Th judge said it was amazing how the company was able to transform large qualities of waste into 'sorting remnants' in a single day without any additional manpower, overtime hours or additional shifts - and amazingly it happened as soon as the landfill fee was  instituted.
Source: Haaretz 13.6.13

The Executive report on the contract will not contain full information: LINK

The report will contain an appendix wih confidential information as specified in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, namely: information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information); confidential information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Brent Council has been playing cat and mouse with Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign over legal issues to do with the procurement process. The withholding of information by the Council has led some experienced legal advisers to suggest that there could be grounds for a Judicial Review in the future.

The exchanges over an FOI request can be found HERE

Campaign to stop Veolia getting its tainted hands on £145m of Brent's money

 Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign is to step up its campaign to get Veolia excluded from the current Brent Public Realm contract procurement process. The contract covers street cleansing, waste management, recycling and parks and BHP grounds maintenance and is worth £145m over 9 years.

The campaign has been escalated following the Procurement Panel's decision after considering detailed evidence from the PSC not to exercise its discretion and exclude Veolia from the process. The evidence gave legal grounds for exclusion on the grounds that Veolia's activities in the Occupited Territories of Palestine constituted grave misconduct.

A letter from Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the West Bank and Gaza Strip,submitted to the North London Waste Authority, where Veolia withdrew from the bidding process, was sent  to the Panel. It said:

It is my view that Veolia’s violations of the UN Global Compact principles and its deep and protracted complicity with grave breaches of international law make it an inappropriate partner for any public institution, especially as a provider of public services.

....I urge you to follow the example set by public authorities and European banks that have chosen to disassociate themselves from Veolia and take the just and principled decision not to award Veolia any public service contracts. Such a measure would contribute to upholding the rule of law and advancing peace based on justice. 

Brent has chosen not to take this 'just and principled decision' and has so far failed to provide Brent and Harrow PSC with the detailed grounds on which it based its decision not to exercise its discretion to exclude.

Petitions will be circulated calling on Brent Council to exclude Veolia and public meetings and lobbies are being arranged.

A copy of the petition can be downloaded below. Please circulate it in workplaces, trade unions, communities and places of worship.   A borough committed to social justice and serving a diverse community should not be handing residents' money over to a company such as Veolia.

Further information can be found on the Brent PSC website HERE

Preview of decisions to be made at Brent Council Executive on Monday

Monday's Meeting of the Brent Council Executive will be making some important decisions. Here is a preview of some of the post important ones:

Delegation of awarding of 'Supporting People Contracts' to achieve 'savings'
Re-procurement of existing services which provides housing support workers, sheltered housing managers, women’s refuge workers, etc. support vulnerable adults to prevent hospital admissions, evictions, mental ill health, homelessness and anti-social behaviour. The budget is additionally utilised to provide a range of non-statutory welfare services including handyperson, accident prevention, and hospital discharge support.

The council aims to make a reduction in costs (cut) of £900,000 through the new contracts. As they are due to run from February 1st there is no time for the Executive to make a decision so it is delegated to Head of Regeneration, Andy Donald and Director of Adult  Social Services, Alison Elliott in consultation with the lead members. LINK

Blue Badge Scheme for people with disabilities
Introduction of a £10 charge for Blue Badges usually payable every three years when badges are renewed plus tougher enforcement. LINK

Green Charter Monitoring
I will cover this in a separate posting. LINK 

Secondary School Expansion 2012-16
I have already blogged on these proposals which involve increasing the capacity of some secondary schools to cater for rising numbers. Kingsbury High will have 15 classes in each age group which will make it a very large school. My blog  HERE Executive Report LINK 

Capital funding for expansion of Vicar's Green Primary, Ealing
Vicar's Green is just over the border in Ealing and provides places for many Brent children. Brent will make a contribution to its expansion to provide more places subject to consultation LINK  

 London Living Wage 
Brent is aiming to becoming an accredited London Living Wage organisation itself and enouraging out-sourced suppliers to also pay it. It is not included as a requirement in the current Public Realm procurement.  My blog on it HERE Council Report: LINK 
 
 Working with Families
An integrated strategy to work with Brent's 810 'Troubled Families' aiming to save money by making it unnecessary for children to go into care and maximising Brent's income from the Government's 'Payment by Results' funding.(!)  It is worth reading the report in full LINK

Annual Audit Letter 2011-12
The letter from the Audiitor states:   
 Following the Audit Committee, on 28 September 2012 Ithe Auditor:
• issued unqualified opinions on the 2011/12 financial statements of the Council and the Pension Fund; and
• concluded that Brent Council made proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in your use of resources in 2011/12.

London Housing Consortium
Proposes that the Brent Executive's responsibilities for the Consortium be discharged to the Lead Member for Housing and another non Executive member (TBC) who will be on the the newly formed Joint Committee of the London Housing Consortium LINK

 The meeting begins at 7pm at Committee Rooms 1-3 Brent Town Hall and is likely to be over by 7pm.

Barnet may opt out of public realm 'supercontract'

On Wednesday 7 November 2012 Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee is considering a recommendation to support the One Barnet in-house Street Scene Project. The One Barnet Street Scene Project includes the following services:

·         Refuse, organic waste and recycling collections

·         Waste strategy

·         Street cleansing

·         Greenspaces

·         Highways operational team

Earlier this month the Brent Executive approved a joint 4 borough procurement for a contract of up to 16 years  which would have covered the first four of the above items. Barnet was one of these partner boroughs, another,  Richmond recently dropped out. If the recommendation is approved by Barnet Council only Brent and Hounslow would remain in the 'super public realm' contract.

A proposed  Brent and Hounslow joint appointment of a Public Health Director was withdrawn before the Brent Executive meeting after encountering opposition from within the Labour Group.
John Burgess Barnet UNISON Branch Secretary said: “This is fantastic news for residents and 700 council workers delivering these services. I want to take the opportunity to applaud the Council for at last recognising the potential of in-house services to be able to compete with the private sector. We are now calling for the Council to halt the current outsourcing plans for the other two contracts (1), worth in excess of a Billion Pounds public money. We are asking for the Council to work with staff, unions and the community to develop efficient, innovative services for Barnet residents and ensure savings go back into the pockets of the council tax payers.” 

(1)  The first One Barnet project known as New Support Customer Services Organisation (NSCSO) will be for back office services such a Finance, Revenues & Benefits, Estates, IT, HR & Payroll etc, it is estimated to be worth up to £750 million.
 

It involves approximately 700 council workers. There is a high probability that the winning bidder will not deliver these services from Barnet so there is a high risk of significant redundancies at the moment of transfer.
 

This contract will be awarded to either Capita or BT at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on Thursday 6 December 2012.
 

The second One Barnet project is known as Development & Regulatory Services (DRS) which includes the following services:

Trading Standards & Licensing, Land Charges, Planning & Development, Building Control & Structures, Environmental Health, Highways Strategy, Highways Network Management, Highways Traffic & Development, Highways Transport & Regeneration, Strategic Planning & Regeneration, Cemeteries & Crematoria.

This contract, worth up to £275 million pounds, will be awarded to Capita Symonds or EC Harris at the Barnet Council Cabinet Resources Committee on 8 January 2013.