Brent Labour backbenchers vote to reduce their own powers and Tories split

 

It was a sad day for democracy at the Brent Council AGM yesterday when not one of the 56 Labour councillors questioned the constitutional changes that will see the level of scrutiny in the Council reduced and limitations on questioning of Cabinet members by backbenchers and the opposition.

At the same time the opposition was weakened by a split in the Conservatives which saw them form an Official Group of three councillors and the 'Brondesbury Park Group' of three.

Cllr John Warren (Brondesbury Park Conservative) opposed the constitutional changes urging Labour backbenchers to 'look at your rights and how they are being lost' pointing to reduced scrutiny, restrictions on questions, removal of 'Key issues' debates, removal of rights to requisition meetings and the guillotine on Council meetings reducing them by 30 minutes.

Dr Helen Carr, (Liberal Democrat, Mapesbury) in her first intervention as a lone Liberal Democrat, said that she did not doubt Muhammed Butt's integrity, but had concerns about the constitutional changes and potential corruption. She appeared to nod in agreement when he reassured her that all was well and all councillors adhered to the highest of standards.

Butt's defence of the changes appeared to be based on their election mandate: 'The people of Brent have spoken'. He argued that the changes would increase participation pointing to the new right of individuals and community organisations to address meetings of the Council. He said that headteachers and doctors would be involved in the new Scrutiny Committee but failed to make a case for the reduction in the overall number of scrutiny committees and restrictions on questions.

All the Labour councillors voted for the changes, Brondesbury Park Conservatives voted against, and the Official Conservatives abstained.

Fryent Way Traveller encampment highlights need for Traveller sites

Rumours circulated yesterday about Travellers moving on to Fryent Country Park. When this picture was taken yesterday there were only a handful of caravans there in the meadow adjacent to the Fryent Way car park.  This meadow is the one used for fun fairs and was the venue for Brent Countryside Day.

There is an official Travellers' site in Brent at Lynton Close in Neasden with space for about 30 caravans but I am unsure whether there are any vacant lots.  Normally a Council officer would visit the unauthorised site and offer accommodation on the official site if it is available.

The Lynton Close site was the scene of demonstrations against evictions in 2008. LINK

The case highlights the change in the law which removed national targets and guidelines for the provision of sites and instead, under the Localism Act, left it up to local authorities to decide their provision.

More information from Shelter LINK

Powney calls for councillors to give themselves time to discuss Scrutiny proposals - and not accept a fait accompli

It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK

Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:

If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny.  It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.

He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed,  will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'

He goes on:

All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done.  I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at.  The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis.  What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue.  Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.

The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis. 

I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.

I hope backbench Labour  councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.

If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.

If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited:  anne.reid@brent.gov.uk

Sulivan Primary closure put on hold

Stephen Cowan, the incoming Labour leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, has announced that the closure of Sulivan Primary School has been put on hold pending the decision of the new adminstration. LINK

Sulivan staff and parents launched a campaign against the former Tory adminstration's plans to close the school and to give the land to Fulham Boys' Free School. The Sulivan pupils were to be transferred to another primary schooll which was on the road to academisation.

The new Council's plans for the building of more  afforadble housing is expected to increase demand for school places in the area.

The news is very welcome, not least for the preservation of the unique outdoor space at Sulivan, the loss of which would have been an act of educational and environmental vandalism.

Congratulations once again to the Sulivan campaigners for their tenacity.

Robust local press in Brent more important than ever

Hannah Bewley, Brent reporter for the Willesden and Wembley Observer, has filed her last reports fro that paper. During her time at the paper, which is an off-shoot of the Harrow Observer, despite having little space she published some great investigative journalism.  The paper was particularly vociferous in its support of the campaign against Brent library closures.

Her departure reflects a reduction in editorial staff of the Trinity South group and the closure of some titles. The WWO, expensive at 90p where sold, is likely to have fewer Brent stories in the future which is a pity.

Meanwhile the pressure which is exerted on the local press is evident in the adjudication published in last week's Brent and Kilburn Times.  The Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint by former Labour councillor Jim Moher against Lorraine King, the BKT news editor but rejected two further complaints by him about accuracy and the opportunity to reply to stories.

The complaint that was upheld was about a comment that she made on Facebook about an unnamed individual Lorraine identified as a 'failed wannabe MP'. and in which she stated ''I plan to make his life a misery as much as possible' and  'Lord God forgive me if I bump into him before I get back to work, you will be visiting me in Holloway'.  The BKT argued that the comment was made on a personal Facebook account that could only be seen by 'friends'.  The comment had been made after she received an email from Moher which said:

Here you are again this week giving extensive coverage to the most scurrilous and unfounded attacks

and concluded:

PS By the way it was me who sorted your permit problem.

At the time that Moher's email, one of a series, was sent Lorraine King was on compassionate leave after the death of her mother. The PS  refers to a parking permit that Ms King needed for grieving relatives.  In the circumstances she found the email upsetting which led to the Facebook comments.

Although the Commission's remit does not cover social media content they ruled that as the comment related to the news editor's contact with Moher in her professional role, and could be viewed by individuals who she came into contact in that role, it could be considered under Clause 4 of the Code which states:

Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

The Commission considered that the implied threat of violence was not intended to be taken seriously but concluded:

...it had no hesitation in finding that this constituted intimidation withint the meaning of Clause 4, and a serious failure to uphold the highest professional standards required by the code.

The Huffington Post in covering this story said it was the first time the PCC, which is shortly to be ablosihed and replaced by several bodies, had decided it could rule on what journalsits said on 'private' social media accounts LINK:

Mike Jempson, Vice-chair of NUJ Ethics Council, told HuffPost UK it was an issue that the union had debated on several occasions. "Difficulties have arisen because some employers encourage reporters to express their opinions on blogs and to engage with their publics via social media, yet as reporters they are expected to retain a degree of impartiality," he said.

“Journalists share the right to freedom of expression with all members of the public, and should not feel constrained in how they express themselves. Indeed many journalists also write fiction, drama and poetry which is not a matter for the PCC."

While stressing it was important the journalists themselves made the distinction between personal and professional contributions on social media, it would be "a pity, and improper, if the PCC and its successor IPSO were to determine that all material by journalists published on non-commercial outlets that operate their own agreed contributors’ codes should be subject to the Editor’s Code.”

Readers will make up their own minds about this but I do hope that the BKT maintains its robust coverage of local issues, which has sometimes inevitably made it unpopular with local councillors. Lorraine King has been an excellent news editor and local press coverage is especially important now that we have a Council with a very large majority. The BKT must continue to be 'on the side of the people'.

Wembley Matters in the past has had its own dealings with Jim and Roth Moher LINK

Powney blasts scrutiny proposals

Former Brent Labour councillor James Powney yesterday blasted the Scrutiny proposals going before the Full Council meeting on Wednesday.  LINK
He describes the proposals as 'ill-advised' and put forward without any disccussion in the Labour Party or meaningful discussion in the Labour Group:

Given the whole point of scrutiny is to make sure that the spending of public money is transparent and above board, the secrecy with which these changes are being treated is particularly ironic. 

He goes on:

...Indeed it might have been specifically designed to do away with meaningful scrutiny altogether. At a time when barriers to corruption in local government are being systematically dismantled, and lower resources put a premium on good quality decision making, this is exactly the opposite of what should be done.

This is strong stuff and for once James Powney and I are in agreement.

New Brent Cabinet must lance this boil

Before the election the Brent Green Party called for an independent investigation into various controversial aspects of the running of Brent Council which had emerged in postings on Wembley Matters.

Brent Council refused to comment on these during the election period but now a new adminstration is in place it is time to launch an independent investigation so that a fresh start can be made which will win the confidence of Brent Council workers and residents.

These are the issues for investigation:

1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll (the allegation has been made that these are tax avoidance schemes)
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments (the allegation has been made that these are on more favourable terms and are less clearly defined than for ordinary Brent Council workers)
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis (the allegation has been made that colleagues who worked together at Ofsted and Tower Hamlets Council have formed a new group of senior officers at Brent Council. Further that an officer in a personal relationship with another officer had adjudicated on fraud allegations against her)
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department (aside from a current Employment Tribunal case allegations have been made by individuals of bullying and harrassment aimed at moving them out of their jobs)
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution

A further issue now that the election is out of the way is the appointment of a Chief Executive. Christine Gilbert's interim appointment was extended by the Brent Executive on the recommendation of Fiona Ledden until after the election.  The permanent position should now be publicy advertised with a transparent recruitment process.


LINKS: (Also see the comments on these posts)

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/victimisation-bullying-racial-and.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/revisiting-christine-gilberts.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brent-not-commenting-on-tewari.html

http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/eric-pickles-urged-to-investigate-brent.html

Brent scrutiny proposals elaborated

I have received further details of the way Scrutiny is intended to operate under the new Brent Council arrangements from a reliable source. They seem to go beyond what is actually in the papers going to Full Council on Wednesday.

There will be 8 members of the Scrutiny Committee withs its work programme co-ordinated by a single Chair. The Chair will be empowered to form sub-committees and task groups to examine particular policy areas and developments.

The Chair will be able to invite any member of the Council, apart from the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, and who are not in the Cabinet,  and 'notable citizens' outside the Council to sit on the sub-committees and task groups.

The seven other members of the Scrutiny Committee will serve as chairs of the sub-committees and task groups as well as contributing to the main Scrutiny Committee.

The claim is that this will give more members of the Council and the public an opportunity to get involved in scrutiny.

The Scrutiny committees will take place on a monthly basis rather than the present quarterly  meetings and the full committee will meet the week after Cabinet meetings.

I also understand that there are proposals for the creation of deputy cabinet positions so as to involve more of the large Labour group in policy making.

On the face of it this clarification (or is it a revision?), seems to go some way to addressing concerns about the lack of scrutiny in an 'almost one party' Council but  the proposals still look rather vague and the method of choosing committee members unclear. It will be the detail, and the people on the committee/s, that will have to convince the sceptics.