A welcome education manifesto from Rescue Our Schools

The Rescue Our Schools LINK campaigning group has published a manifesto which should be of interest to parents and teachers. It brings together many issues which have become prominent in later years. It has much in common with Green Party education policy:

It’s time for a new vision for education fit for the 21^st Century

Young people in 21^st Century Britain need the skills to ensure they can thrive in an increasingly automated world. We need an education system that encourages them to think creatively, critically and confidently,  and nurtures a more cohesive society. Rescue Our Schools believes we must overturn many of the education strategies successive governments have adopted.

Here is our Six Point Plan for a 21^st Century Education System:

1. INVEST IN ALL OUR FUTURES
2. PROVIDE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR ALL
3. PROMOTE EDUCATION OVER EXAM FACTORIES
4. DEVELOP CREATIVITY IN ALL ITS FORMS
5. LET EXPERT EVIDENCE INFORM POLICY
6. ENSURE LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL SCHOOLS

        1 . INVEST IN ALL OUR FUTURES

• All children have the right to the best possible education we can provide. A successful education system should reduce inequalities and promote fulfilment. Better educated, more fulfilled children become better educated, more fulfilled adults. This benefits the individual, society and the economy in the long term.
• There must be enough money in the new funding formula so no school or child loses out.
• Teachers and school leaders must be valued as highly skilled professionals. Their workload should ensure a healthy work-life balance. A well-motivated workforce benefits everyone.
• Schools should be encouraged to collaborate and share resources in order to work in the best interests of pupils and the local community. Making schools compete in an artificial market creates winners and losers. No child benefits from being in a losing school.
• Local Authorities must have sufficient funding to retain expertise and provide schools with the support and challenge they need to thrive.
• Learning isn’t limited to school. Our vision is for an education system that provides free, universal access to learning from early years onwards.

2. PROVIDE INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FOR ALL

• Parents and carers want good schools for everyone, not just some. The world’s most successful education systems have no selection and there’s no evidence it improves standards or life chances.
• Children with special education needs deserve the same opportunities as other children. Specialist SEN provision should match local need, taking into account the views of parents and professionals. Children with disabilities or difficulties in mainstream schooling have a right to additional support in the classroom and their funding for this must be ring-fenced.
• Good early years support narrows the educational equality gap; it should be properly funded and supported, and available to all.

3. PROMOTE EDUCATION OVER EXAM FACTORIES

• Pupil assessments must be for their benefit. Linking assessment to school accountability puts inappropriate pressure on staff – which in turn can be passed on to parents and pupils. League tables based on SATS and GCSE results say nothing more than how good schools are at getting children to pass exams.
• We need a truly independent review of primary assessment and its purpose in our children’s education. SATs are damaging primary school children and teachers, narrowing the curriculum and forcing schools to teach to the test. The government’s proposal for “baseline” tests on four year olds will be a judgement on parenting, without reducing inequality.
• We need a secondary level assessment system that allows students to demonstrate all their talents, not just academic. A General Certificate of Secondary Education should be a general assessment of what a pupil has achieved during their time in education. Other more successful education systems do this; so should we.
• School Inspections should consider the quality and breadth of students’ understanding across many areas, how well schools support emotional and physical wellbeing, and staff retention. Judging schools only on test results is harmful for everyone involved.

4. DEVELOP CREATIVITY IN ALL ITS FORMS

• Children need time to learn how to learn. Evidence shows that effective, play-based, early years education helps children acquire vital life skills such as how to communicate and work in groups.
• Children need a broad ranging, engaging and balanced curriculum. Make space for creative and vocational subjects as well as sport. Research shows these help children’s wellbeing and learning across all subjects. High-stakes testing is pushing out music, art, drama, sport and more creative approaches to learning. Let’s give schools genuine freedom to innovate.

5. LET EXPERT EVIDENCE INFORM POLICY

• 21^st Century education policy-making must be evidence-based, not dominated by the ideology or school experiences of government ministers.
• Rescue Our Schools is calling for an independent, expert-led review of all education provision from early childhood to early adulthood. Its goal would be to recommend the best possible curriculum, assessment and structures for the 21^st
• Education and mental health experts should join forces with regular national surveys to find out what is causing the rapid rise in wellbeing issues among children and young people, including the possible impact of high stakes testing and ‘boot camp’ schooling.

6. ENSURE LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOLS

• Parents and carers need to know who to turn to when things aren’t right. Lines of accountability within schools must be clearly set out.
• Schools should be rooted in their communities. Parents and communities should be empowered, through governing bodies, to influence change when it is needed.
• There is no evidence that the academy structure improves educational or financial performance. Government should stop wasting millions handing over schools to multi-academy trusts which are not accountable to families or local communities.
• Local Authorities should be given back the ability to plan school places, opening and maintaining new schools when and where they are required. The Free Schools programme should be abolished.

Cllr Tatler challenged on Wembley Regeneration's alleged benefits

 

Brent Council 2002

I have received the following Anonymous guest blog in reaction to the lead members' Q&As published earlier LINK:

I read your blog about the forthcoming Full Council Meeting with intrigue, particularly the question  “1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:”  and the fantastical answer given by Councillor Tatler. I have added a few follow up questions that should now be asked. 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion.”

Additional Questions:  The public consensus is that they have failed miserably in their task, even the Daily Mail agree.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress”.

Additional Questions: That may be true, but it is a shame it has produced such an unqualified mess, just ask residents and the Daily Mail. The planning process has created a shambolic development becoming know as Rent City where there is no community, just a never ending churn of unknowns.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:  A 7 hectare public park”.

Additional Questions: Where is this then? Not another paved concourse with token raised planters and a few sapling trees, I hope.

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision”.

Additional Questions: Where abouts are these then?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Primary health care facility (1500m minimum)”.

Additional Questions:  According to the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at a recent meeting in public, this facility was turned down by the Council and is now used as a Gym.  If untrue, where is the Primary Health Care Facility?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “ Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area”.

Additional Questions:  Details please?  How much?  Aren’t all Brent Secondary Schools academies? Aren’t academies funded directly by the DoE!!!

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates”.

Additional Questions: Where is this located then??

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground - stations to improve capacity and the environment”.

Additional Questions:  Details please? or is this the £17million of CIL the Council are going to spend to improve the Quintain Development Area? This includes Olympic Way? where the Stadium ramps will be replaced by stairs (no doubt to fit another tower block or two? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects”.

Additional Questions:  Isn’t this money being spent across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road”.

Additional Questions:  Example please? The roads around the Triangle are normally at a standstill which delays the buses and other vehicles alike. Queues regularly form all the way back to Forty Lane.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses”.

Additional Questions:  What are these?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy”.

Additional Questions:  What are the council spending this money on? How much money excluding the CIL spent on items above?  How much is in this cash pot? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects”

Additional Questions:  This money is not being spent in the Regeneration/Development areas, it is being spread across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough”.

Additional Questions:  What is it going to be? Does the Council have any idea?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area”.

Additional Questions:  You wouldn’t have known it, is the current public consensus.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years” .

Additional Questions:  15-20 years? The powers that be cannot construct reliable plans for the short

term, so what hope have they in planning for the next 15-20 years? Is this new plan as advised by officers implying Metroland developments with their large gardens are being targeted for redeveloped into high density housing?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  "Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute" .

Additional Questions:  The Council CONSULT but do not LISTEN , and they certainly DON'T consider the views of residents or any criticism from these groups. How will this be different?

Activist slams Capita & Barnet Council over Brent Cross regen plans

Local activist Alison Hopkins has written to the current Public Inquiry into the the compulsory purchases of the Brent Cross Regeneration Scheme outlining its impact on local residents. It is long so please use the 'Read more'  button to get the whole picture

I am writing to you as a long-time resident – over forty years - of Humber Road NW2 in the London Borough of Brent, and as the former Brent councillor for this ward, Dollis Hill. I am also representing many local residents and associations in this letter.

I request that you pass the following to the Inspector leading the Public Inquiry into CPO3 for the Brent Cross Regeneration scheme as a matter of urgency.

This is on the grounds that not only are Barnet Council and Capita utterly failing to listen to local people, as has been their pattern for over a decade, but are also gravely misleading the Inspector. I have been personally attempting to have proper discussions and gain true answers to the points raised here for almost a decade. I have constantly been stalled by Barnet, Capita and their partners, especially G L Hearn.

Most recently, residents who attended the so-called public consultations in Dollis Hill were promised full responses, but these have never been forthcoming. G L Hearn promised to arrange a meeting with Barnet officers after the latest consultation meeting in April. Despite repeated emails from me, and others, this has never happened. We are being neglected and ignored by Barnet/Capita deliberately.

As we are in a neighbouring borough, they feel entirely free to do so, to our huge detriment, presumably because we do not constitute their electorate. Dollis Hill is DIRECTLY ADJACENT to the development and will be more affected by these proposed road changes than ANY residential part of Barnet. This is unfair under common law.

The Story of Wembley Park Studios - Preston Library Sat Sept 23rd

Brent Council reviews processes after 1,000 resident's e-mail addresses were circulated by accident

Brent Council has rather belatedly responded to my story of September 1st LINK on a data protection breach where more than 1,000 visible email addresses were sent to Brent residents in a notice about a meeting venue change.

A Brent Council spokesperson said:

The email was sent out by a council employee to provide information about upcoming events. A mistake was made in sending the emails, the sender intended to use bcc but accidently used the To field. This meant that the email addresses were visible to others. An apology was sent out straight away to all recipients. No personal data about the individuals was disclosed, only their email addresses and they were not linked to any particular forums or groups. 

The council’s policy is to use the blind copy feature when sending bulk emails and the Council is satisfied that this was down to human error. The Council has reviewed its process and is taking further technical  measures to reduce the chances of this happening in the future.

How polluted is your child's school playground? Find out here.

Client Earth has published an interactive map showing the proximity of schools to polluted roads and the level of exposure children will experience.

Go to LINK for the interactive map.  The site includes a link to your MP so you can raise the issue with her or him.

Client Earth said:

Across the country, children are exposed to illegal and harmful levels of air pollution while on their way to and at school.

In the UK, pupils at almost 1,000 schools are exposed to NO₂ levels that endanger their health and will shape their future wellbeing.

Traffic pollution contains nitrogen dioxide, NO₂, as well as microscopic soot particles – known as “particulate matter” (PM) – which are known to be especially harmful to health. These can be inhaled deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream.

While the UK meets legal limits of PM these are more than double the recommended guideline levels by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

We need the UK government to take urgent action to meet legal limits of NO₂ in the shortest time possible.

It also needs to take action to reduce levels of PM. It should adopt legal limits for PM that match the safer WHO guideline levels to better safeguard our health.

Our government is failing our children. But you can force it to act.

Lions of Grunwick immortalised as commemoration mural unveiled

It's finally here! Grunwick 40 is delighted to announce that the mural commemorating the Grunwick strike will be unveiled on Saturday 30th September at noon, Chapter Road, NW2 5ND (by Dollis Hill Jubilee line station).

Designed by artist Anna Ferrie and more than 60 participants at community workshops, the artwork has been a collaborative effort reflecting both memories of the strike for those who were present and the hope it represents for younger generations. Join us as we reveal a colourful memorial to mark this seminal moment in British history!

There will be a reception afterwards close by at Brent Mencap, 379-381 High Road, Willesden, NW10  2JR (Opposite Tony's pub).

Wembley Matters congratulates all involved.

Brent Conservative Group call for independent inquiry into Brent planning process

Brent Conservative Group have tabled a motion for the September 18th Full Council meeting calling for an independent inquiry into every aspect of Brent Council's planning process:

This Council notes that our residents have lost confidence in the Brent planning system.
Residents tell us that consultations are mere public- relation exercises, that decisions are often perverse and some seemingly politically- motivated. 

We note last year's damning report on the Brent planning service by PWC, and agree to hold an independent inquiry into every aspect of the planning process. This Council agrees that this is the only way that we can hope to restore residents' confidence in our planning service

Cabinet answers public's questions on Quintain development, fly-tipping and social housing priorities

Questions from the public to Cabinet members is now part of the FullCouncil agenda. Answers are written rather than read out and it is unusual for the member of the public to be present at the meeting to follow up the answer to their question.

These are the questions and answers on the Agenda of the September 18th meeting.

Questions from Members of the Public Full Council – 18 September 2017

1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:

My question is specifically around Wembley Park and the regeneration currently on where lots of old buildings are coming down to create new buildings and flats.

I would like to know how the Council is preparing to serve all the thousands of residents that will be living in these flats by 2020 and the pressure on local services that this will put, i.e. Transport, healthcare, schooling, police, welfare etc.

What are the strategies in place or planned so along with Wembley Stadium, Arena, London Designer Outlet (LDO) and Brent Civic Centre, the authorities are able to cope with the pressure expected on them?

Response:

The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion. Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress. The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:

•   7 hectare public park 


•   New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, 
plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision 


•   Primary health care facility (1500m minimum) 


•   Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area 


•   6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates 


•   Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground 
stations to improve capacity and the environment 


•   Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects 


• Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses

Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy, part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects, and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough.

The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area. The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years. Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute.

2. Question from Ms Dowell to Councillor Southwood, Lead Member for Environment:

I am concerned about the increase of systematic fly tipping in and around Selwyn Avenue, Bruce and Alric Avenue.

Although this is removed by the contractors it defeats the object. I am told by other residents that they see vans dumping their rubbish.

We have a high volume of rental properties which has also caused a problem.

I would like to know how much does it cost to send the contractors out to collect and why doesn't the council look at prevention?

I was told by the environment team last year that would look into it.
I am fed up with the dumping environment as I pay council tax and expect more.

Response:

The removal of illegally dumped rubbish is covered by the cleansing service specification within the Council’s Public Realm Contract. The cost of this service is included in the overall circa £17m annual cost for the Contract; this is a fixed cost and not a variable charge dependent on the number of incidents the contractor responds to.

The Council takes illegal rubbish dumping very seriously and through a combination of enforcement, education and community engagement, we continue to work hard to make an impact on this problem.

Colleagues from Veolia (Brent’s Public Realm contractor) inspect illegally dumped waste for direct evidence and refer their findings onto the enviro-crime enforcement team. This evidence, together with evidence obtained through other direct referrals to the council and investigations by the enviro-crime enforcement team, has resulted in hundreds of fines being issued and a large number of successful prosecutions. In 2016/17, there were 629 cases which led to these such sanctions being imposed, and following a change in penalty level in 2016, Brent issued the second highest number of fixed penalty notices in the country for illegal rubbish dumping.

The Council uses a range of tactics to assist in combating illegal rubbish dumping, including deployment of surveillance utilising our new in-house environment patrol team to carry out high visibility patrols and conducting out of hours in areas known to be environmental crime and antisocial behaviour hotspots in the borough.

These operations include CCTV officers in the Brent Control Room, who monitor and support the patrols on the ground. We do not advertise when, where or how we conduct this surveillance, to ensure it is as effective as possible.

Of course, preventing illegal rubbish dumping also requires assistance and cooperation from local residents, as they can help us by reporting and identifying people who they see illegally dumping waste. We encourage residents to report any incidents of illegal rubbish dumping in as much detail as possible online via the council’s website. All reports are logged, and as mentioned above, waste is searched for evidence before being cleared to enable us to take enforcement action wherever possible. Data on all reports received is collated to enable the council to build a full picture of the problem ‘hot spots’ across the borough, so we can properly prioritise the deployment of our officers.

In terms of the specific areas highlighted in the question above, the enviro-crime enforcement team have conducted a site visit to inspect the problem and developed an appropriate action plan for the locations to include visits by our environmental patrol team, surveillance of the area and our contractor, Veolia, carrying out door knocking in the area to provide information on how waste should be disposed of and how instances of illegally dumped waste can be reported.

3. Question from Mr Adow & Mrs Macolin to Councillor Farah, Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform:

We have been on the social housing waiting list over 20yrs for a 4 bed property. Even though we been living in a 3 bed flat for the last 7yrs we are not allowed to bid for a 3 bed house and we have seen people joining the list and without waiting a year being found permanent housing.

We can understand if that family has very specific needs like illness or disability, but all the others we cannot understand why they can't be placed in temporary accommodation at least 5yrs. What is wrong with a first joined first housed system as it is now a local system many feel is open for abuse? Please see our bidding for the last 5 years to understand why we have pointed this out to you.

All we are asking is for a place we can call home. Our children question this all the time and we apologise in advance if we have expressed our feelings wrongly.

Response:

First of all, there is no need to apologise for asking a reasonable question about the long wait for a home. It is not always easy to understand the way the housing system works but we hope this brief explanation will help.

To be able to bid, applicants must fall into one of three priority bands on the system – A, B or C, with Band A representing the highest priority, including the kinds of medical priority mentioned in the question. Households to whom a full homelessness duty has been accepted, as in this case, are placed in Band C. Households within each band are then given priority based on the date they first applied (the “priority date). To this extent, the system is “first come, first served” and those waiting longest in each band have the greatest priority. In most circumstances, the household in the highest band with the earliest priority date making a bid will be accepted first. In practice, the highest priority households will not always bid and the opportunity to do so will fall to the next in line. There may also be cases where a property does not become available through Locata because the council makes a direct offer, usually to meet an urgent need. However, it should not be the case that applicants are advised they cannot bid, unless there is a particular restriction on a property, for example because it is only available to a household with a wheelchair user.

There is a severe shortage or larger affordable homes. In the five years since 2012, 122 four bedroom homes have been let, 71 of them to households in Band C. The current shortest waiting time for 4 bedroom homes is 11 years and the longest 24 years, although it should be stressed that the upper figure is distorted by the number of households who do not bid for a range of reasons.

Officers would be happy to meet with Mrs Malcolin and Mr Addow to discuss their situation and advise them how they can make best use of Locata.

Direct action at Arms Fair: No faith in war

-->

Local activists joined Day three of the #StopDSEI week of action: Waves of action blocked both roads into the arms fair for hours at a time as activists gathered to oppose nuclear weapons and call for the government to shift from arms production to renewable energy.

Campaigner Gaynor Lloyd appears in the video along with Jonathan Bartley, Green Party co-leader. Gaynor remarked today, in a reference to the battle over the Harrow School public footpath:

 It is ironic that the Open Spaces Society were diffident about serving a notice under the Highways Act on Harrow School that would have led the school to be up in the Magistrates Court for a breach of Section 137 of the aforementioned Highways Act - after 9 years of  blocking Footpath 57. It took 11 minutes for me to get nicked for self- same offence on Wednesday.... Food for thought, eh?  

Daily Mail claims Wembley Stadium is being 'hemmed in' by Quintain developments

I don't often quote the Daily Mail but a recent comment by columnist Charles Sale LINK may ring bells with Wembley residents regarding concerns over over-development of the site by Quintain. As a Green I support a mainly public transport venue but it is clear not everyone is happy with current arrangements.

One of the biggest financial blunders in the history of the FA would have been apparent to fans at Wembley on Monday night as the huge car park nearest the stadium is no longer in use.

This is because work has started on the latest building development by all-too-close neighbours Quintain to construct 500 new homes on the site.

Apart from the inconvenience of parking now being further away — which the VIPs will not like — the project is taking place on land that could have been FA property if more vision had been shown two decades ago.

In 1999 the FA only had the funds — courtesy of a £120million Lottery grant from Sport England — to buy land for the stadium but none of the surrounds now being exploited by Quintain. For less than the £35m it cost Liverpool to buy Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain from Arsenal, however, the FA could have bought the whole 85-acre site and staged the London 2012 Olympics there.

Instead, one of the world’s great stadiums is hemmed in on all sides by Quintain projects.

Brent Council and Cara Davani – something has happened!

Guest post from Philip Grant

Wembley Matters readers still following this long-running saga might be interested to know what has happened since the last update I gave at the end of June. LINK

The auditor, Andrew Sayers of KPMG, finally sent his ‘provisional view and material documents’ letters to the five Brent residents, who had objected to the Council’s June 2015 leaving payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani, on 3 August 2017. The final paragraph of his letter reminded me that the “disclosure of information” provisions (Schedule 11) of the relevant legislation still apply to his enquiries. I am therefore restricted as to what I can tell you, as ‘failure to comply with Schedule 11 is capable of amounting to a criminal offence and liable to a fine upon summary conviction.’

When we read his ‘provisional view’, the same word sprang to the minds of three objectors. It was not an expletive, but I can give you a clue without disclosing any of the contents of the letter. The OED definition of the word is: ‘a liquid containing quicklime or powdered chalk, used for painting walls or ceilings etc.’

Still, we were not disheartened, as the auditor’s letter stressed that this was only his provisional view. He had not reached any final view, or decided our objections, and would not do so until he had considered any additional comments or evidence that the objectors or the Council might wish to provide.

However, when I looked at the “material documents” which the auditor had sent with his letter, I found that these did not include any of the documents we had been expecting to receive, since they were handed over to KPMG by the Council last December. There was only one “material document” which did relate to the payment to Ms Davani, and as that document is already “in the public domain” I am allowed to tell you about it, or you can read it for yourself. LINK

Why are the 30 June 2016 minutes of Brent’s Audit Committee a “material document” in considering objections against the £157,610 payment to Cara Davani? Because at item 7 (Draft Statement of Accounts 2015/16) they contain a brief explanation of the reason the payment was made, and of the legal advice on which it was based.

But if a Council Officer had explained everything about the payment in June 2016 (in the first public admission of such a payment, a year after it had been paid), why had five local electors objected in August 2016 to that payment being included in the accounts? Surely the primary documents from May and June 2015 should also be treated as “material documents”, and shown to the objectors so that they could provide comments, and any counter evidence, in support of their objections!

I was not able to persuade the auditor with this argument, when I put it to him on 4 August. Nor did his position on this change when I drew his attention to the relevant guidance issued by the NAO, “Auditor Guidance Note 4” (AGN 04), which he is meant to follow, later in the month. Para. 36 of AGN 04 says:

‘Sharing material information and inviting representations on it is required in public law as the auditor is exercising quasi-judicial powers.’

I was arguing that the primary documents (which the auditor holds) about the £157,610 payment must be “material documents”, so should be shared with the objectors before we made our comments. The auditor said that he would look at our comments (which he had first asked for within three weeks, but then agreed an extra week, with a 31 August “deadline”), and if he then considered those documents to be “material”, he would share them with us and give us the opportunity to comment on them. I summed this up to him as:

‘What you appear to be saying is: 'I won't share material information with you now, but after you have made any representations I might share some of the material information with you (and if I do, I will give you the chance to make some further representations).'

As the “deadline” was fast approaching, the objectors had to submit the best ‘additional comments and evidence’ that we could in the circumstances. One of the points I was able to make was that the summary of the May 2015 legal advice, as given to the Audit Committee, showed that the point the QC had been asked to look at was “unfair dismissal”, if Brent had sacked Cara Davani. At a meeting with the objectors last December, the Chief Executive referred to a document Ms Davani had given to the Council at the time. This strongly suggested that the point the QC should have been asked to look at was “constructive dismissal”, which may well have produced different advice, and not led to any payment to her.

We have not been allowed to see Cara Davani’s “statement of loss”, and even if we had I would not be allowed to tell you what it said, but I did refer to it in a “guest blog” in January. LINK :-

‘We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!’

I can assure you that the objectors have done their best to provide the auditor with information about a pattern of abuses of power at the top of Brent Council from 2012 onwards, which came to a head with the, we allege unlawful, payment of £157,610 to Cara Davani in 2015. I have also provided evidence to show why that payment was really made (and how the Officer who provided the “official” explanation to Audit Committee was, like the Council itself, the victim of a deception).

I have been greatly helped in piecing together my researches over Brent Council and Cara Davani by comments, many of them anonymous, which Wembley Matters readers have made in response to blogs by Martin and myself since 2014. Thank you, everyone, for the parts you have played in allowing the objectors to lay the evidence before the auditor. There is a strong case for the auditor to make a Public Interest Report, to bring this matter into the open, so that key figures at Brent Council, past and present, can be asked to explain their actions, and be held to account. We shall have to wait and see whether Mr Sayers will now make that report.

Philip Grant.