The Buttocracy hangs on to every little bit of power it can and even extends it - even at the expense of effective scrutiny

An attempt to loosen the  grip of the Buttocracy on Brent Council failed tonight when Labour councillors voted down an amendment that Scrutiny Committee  chairs should come from the opposition councillors so as to provide great transparency and collaborative work. Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, went further in undermining the opposition by springing a surprise decision that he would appoint the vice chairs of the scrutiny committees (from his own party) rather than the custom and practice that these should come from the opposition. 

Hithertoo that has been the case as Roxanne Mashari, former Chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny said on Twitter:

Alarmed to hear of changes brought in at Brent Council to make vice chairs of scrutiny members of the majority party rather than opposition parties as has previously been the case. This change weakens democratic scrutiny with no tangible benefit to residents.

Unfortunately the legislation around local authority scrutiny is woefully lacking and allows councils to effectively mark their own homework and cut back and control the scrutiny function. It’s truly absurd. Legislative change is very overdue in this area.

Cllr Connely (Labour) will chair Resourcs and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee with Cllr Janice Long (Labour) vice chair. Cllr Ketan Sheth (Labour) continues to chair Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny  with Cllr Diane Collymore vice chair.

Paul Lorber, a previous leader of Brent Council and newly re-elected this time round, made the case for greater participation by opposition councillors. He said scrutiny should come before decision making, not after decisions had been made by Cabinet. Effective scrutiny needs real teeth and power. He said chairing of scrutiny committees by opposition councillors happened in other council. He was backed by Cllr Kasangra for the Conservatives. 

This is the moment when Cllr Butt seized more power:

 

Cllr Butt was having none of it. Such loss of power and patronage was unthinkable. In fact he was actually extending his patronage.

Clearly when there is heavy domination by one party a case can be made on democratic and representative gounds for enabling the opposition to be as effective as possible by appointing them as chairs or vice chairs of scrutiny.

The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (202-21) Annual Survey of Overview and Scrutiny in Local Government LINK found that in 49% of councils all chairing positions are in the hands of the majority party, and in 17% most chairing positions are in the hands of the majority. In only 20% are chairing positions occupied in a politically balanced way and in just 14% are chairing positions mostly in the hands of the opposition. Importantly it  did find that scrutiny in councils where oppositon councillors hold some chairing positions tended overall to be more effective.

Shouldn't we all be in favour of more effective scrutiny?

It is worth remembering what Barry Gardiner told the Kilburn Times in 2014 after Labout won 56 out of 63 council seats on 53% of the votes LINK:

Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, who attended the vote count, said he was delighted with the result but issued a stern warning to the group’s councillors.

He said: “I’m thrilled, of course I’m thrilled but we need to be very careful.

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

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

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

You don't have to look just 'within ourselves' for effective scrutiny if there are opposition councillors also able and willing to do it.

 

Healthy Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes to be discussed at Brent Scrutiny on Tuesday

 I understand that Healthy Neighbourhood schemes (LTN - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods) are to be discussed at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday (6pm) under the standing agenda item 'Topical Issues'.

The Brent Cabinet has the officers' report recommending the removal of four of the schemes on its agenda. Cabinet takes place tomorrow at 10am.

Cabinet approves most of Scrutiny recommendations on Carlton-Granville but activists fail to win more community space

Brent Cabinet tonight approved the Scrutiny's recommendations on the Carlton-Granville development with just one amendment. Cabinet agreed to alter 'ensure' to 'explore' in point 'a' about the provision of 3 or 4 bedroomed houses:

A series of speakers made the community's case for more community space in the development with the proposed housing built elsewhere. This would maximise the available space when tenants' halls have been closed and the population of the estate is increasing as the result of regeneration.

Their contributions were politely acknowledged but the new housing build on the site will go ahead and community space not increased.  Noise reduction will be addressed at the planning stage but local people are fearful that accommodating homes and a late night community venue on the site will lead to conflict.  There is likely to be some broadening of the Key Stakeholders Group but whether that will satisfy the community remains to be seen.

Matt Kelcher, chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee was unable to attend Cabinet and no one else from the Committee came forward to replace him - so the voice of Scrutiny was missing apart from the written report.

This is a video of community representations made at the Cabinet meeting:

Reaction this morning from the South Kilburn Trust which was criticised last night for being undemocratic and representing the Council rather than the community:

Astonishingly, no risk assessment carried out on NW London NHS proposals

The NW London NHS proposals for far reaching changes in health provision have not been subject to a risk assessment despite them involving the closure of four Accident and Emergency facilities, including that at Central Middlesex Hospital, and the down-grading of several hospitals in the area.  The proposals affect 700,000 people.

The revelation was made at the August 2nd meeting of the NW London NHS Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee on which Cllr Sandra Kabir is Brent's representative. Risk registers are a standard method of assessing the risks on a High, Medium or Low traffic light system, establishing the nature of the risk and who is affected, and the strategies for reducing that risk.  Brent Council has such a scheme in its Corporate Risk Register LINK

Instead the authors of the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals proposed that the risk assessment would only be made AFTER the consultation and when the proposals have been approved. This means that councillors and the general public will have no way of assessing the severity of the risk posed to residents,  which clearly could  be a matter of life or death, during the consultation period. In effect they will be making a response without knowledge of the potential impact of the proposals on people's health and well-being.

The committee was clearly concerned and agreed to 'revisit' the issue at a later meeting.Cllr Lucy Ivimy (Conservative, Hammersmith and Fulham) wrote to a concerned member of the public who attended the meeting:

I agree with you about the lack of a risk register and as you say, for the NHS to produce one only after the decision has been taken is extraordinary. The committee will be looking further into various aspects of risk. I am personally concerned that the full impact of the proposed changes has not been made clear in this consultation process.

A further critical issue was the consultation document's claim that the proposed changes were based on 'tried or tested ways of delivering healthcare' that it claims already work in many parts of NW London and the rest of the county (p20). The two expert witnesses heard by the committee were less sure. Asked about whether the structure worked in other parts of Europe Professor Welbourn admitted, 'there is no evidence the  system will work'. Asked whether it would be possible to deliver the necessary community services involved in the changes, Dr Honeyman said, 'no one knows, no one has ever been here before'.

These revelations show that we are being sold a pig in a poke and it is imperative that the proposals are subject to robust scrutiny at the appropriate committees at the  NW London NHS and local council level. They confirm the need for a broad-based campaign against the changes..