Seething behind the scenes at Brent Council's meeting tonight

The format of Brent Council meetings these days is pretty predictable.  LINK The Leader makes a speech extolling the virtues of Labour members, outlines the difficult conditions caused by Coalition cuts and berates the opposition and then reaffirms the administration's commitment to protecting the vulnerable. Often adding that none of us became councillors to make cuts but we have to obey the law'.

The Tories refer to the mess left by Labour, wastefulness of the Council and go on about parking charges.

Questions to Cabinet members now have to be sent in advance so answers are carefully crafted. Backbench councillors ask prepared questions (often read out in stilted fashion) to Cabinet members that enable the latter to preen themselves and boast of their achievements with the opportunity for an additional swipe at the opposition.

Towards the end of the meeting Motions are put by Labour, Conservative Officials (Kenton) and Conservative Provisionals (Brondesbury Park). There's some Punch and Judy exchanges with the lone Lib Dem councillor looking a little lost; and then the Labour motion is approved and the Conservative motions defeated.

The unpredictability lies mainly with the voting of the Conservative groups and whether the Officials support the Provisionals or remain loyal to the Labour Group who granted them official status.

Tonight Cllr John Warren is moving a motion that regrets the fact that Standing Order changes mean that they cannot propose a vote of 'No Confidence' in Councillor Butt.

Warren will not have endeared himself to the Kenton councillors with the tweet he sent out in the early hours this morning:

 Kenton Conservative Councillor Bhiku M Patel died recently while on holiday in India.

Hardly tasteful tweeting.

Underneath all this there are real issues that could be raised. One is an update on the progress of appointing a new Chief Executive Officer. The Minutes of the September 2014 meeting record:

The Leader referred to the decision taken in June 2013 regarding the appointment of a new Chief Executive.  He stated that the external auditors were reporting back on how the Council was operating and whilst there was progress being made, stability within the Council would enable further progress to be made.  The current arrangements would therefore remain in place until a recruitment process began in the new year which would tie in with the launch of the new Borough Plan.

There has been little sign of any recruitment process and it now looks as if there may be an argument that Christine Gilbert should stay on until after the General Election because of her role as Returning Officer.  The fact that her partner Tony McNulty is actively campaigning for a Labour victory in Brent is not seen as a conflict of interest.

Another issue is of course that around the Employment Tribunal case and the finding that Brent Council racially discriminated against a council worker, victimised her and constructively dismissed her. Christine Gilbert will not countenance any disciplinary move against Cara Davani who was the second respondent in the case. Cara Davani, head of Human Resources. Cara Davani drew up Christine Gilbert's contract when she replaced Gareth Daniel  as Acting CEO, that included payment into her private company Christine Gilbert Associates. At the time Davbani wa sbeing paid a daily fee of £700 into her private company.

It would be interesting to have an update from Cllr Michael Pavey, Deputy Leader, on his internal review of Human Resources policies and processes. Two issues came up during the debate about his review including whether workers would have confidence that there would be no retribution over what they said and whether they could communicate with councillors over their concerns.

In Item 13 (Constitutional Amendment) a new clause has been added:

So Councillors approached by workers with concerns about racial discrimination, victimisation or constructive dismissal have to report them to Cara Davani, Head of Human Resources, who was the second respondent in a case where Brent Council was found to have racially discriminated against an employee who was victimised and constructively dismissed.  Cara Davani will be managing the redundancies consequent on the latest round of cuts.

Cara Davani is of course leading on the senior management restructure which has seen packages agreed for Fiona Ledden (former head of Legal and Procurement) and Ben Spinks (former Assistant Chief Executive Officer who was only appointed in 2013).

I understand that there has been one slight change in Gilbert and Davani's proposals. The original consultation ring-fenced the post of a senior legal officer to replace Ledden. Cara Davani's partner, Andy Potts,  was one of three employees thus eligible for the post. It was the only ring-fenced post in the whole reorganisation. Now the post will not be ring-fenced but only advertised internally. This seems to make little real difference in terms of who might be qualified for the post, so may just be a cosmetic change.

The Labour Group has its own internal tensions and a Labour councillor recently suggested to me that Muhammed Butt's support had declined to about 50% of the group against 75% a few weeks ago. It does not seem to be political opposition so much as distrust following recent machinations.


In the same week Pavey's Review will be put before the General Purposes Committee.

So if you have the staying power to watch the Council meeting on livestream tonight, just remember what is seething beneath the surface. Livestreaming failed last time but is supposed to have gone through an upgrade. To view from 7pm follow this LINK

Brent North CLP want to see rethink of Ed Balls' austerity-lite strategy

Ed Balls reacts to the Brent North motion (not really!)

As the Green Party positions itself as the only anti-austerity party in the forthcoming General Election, and recruits hundreds of  ex Labour voters, many in the Labour Party are dismayed that Ed Balls seems to be painting them into an 'austerity-lite' corner.

Locally this has emerged in a motion tabled by Labour veteran Colin Adams at Brent North Labour Constituency Party General Meeting last Thursday.

The motion claimed that Balls' approach is 'hardly designed to  win over any of our potential voters who may be wavering, as it send a message that there is not much to choose between the main parties in their approach to austerity and its impact on the welfare state.'

I couldn't have put it better myself.

This is the full text as tabled:

Brent North CLP is extremely concerned that the Coalition government`s cuts to public sector spending are causing huge damage to the fabric of the welfare state. The Coalition parties have shown that their policies are not governed by economic necessity but by ideology. They are committed to shrinking the role of the state and allowing public services to be taken over by the market. In Brent, as in other councils, impossible decisions about which services should be prioritised for cuts are being forced upon local politicians.

Labour must go into the upcoming election with policies that show clear differences with the Coalition parties, otherwise there is a grave danger we will not win an overall majority. In particular we need to show that we are prepared to fund local services adequately.

We were thus dismayed at the recent statement by the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, that the election of a Labour government would not necessarily lead to an easing of the pressure on public services. This approach is hardly designed to win over any of our potential voters who may be wavering, as it sends a message that there is not much to choose between the main parties in their approach to austerity and its impact on the welfare state. It is electorally damaging to say we are going to stick with the existing government`s spending plans.

We call on the Labour leadership to rethink this strategy and state that, upon  the election of a Labour government, a new budget will be drawn up for immediate implementation with the aim of reflating the economy and protecting public services.                   

BREAKING NEWS! Brighton Green Party passes motion supporting 'No Cuts' budget - Join the resistance

Pic Bright Greens

Breaking news from Brighton

This is the full and final text (below) of the No Cuts motion passed by a large majority at a quorate and well attended meeting of the Brighton & Hove Green Party today.  The General Meeting sets policy for the party, but cannot "instruct" Green Councillors. However, given that the General Meeting is "the prime decision making and organisational body for the BHGP", and has now made this vital policy decision, the party expect Green Councillors to abide by it, and if they feel they cannot, to step down.  It remains to be seen what will happen when the Budget comes up for decision in late February, but the local party has now made its position very clear - Green Councillors should not vote for any cuts budget or abstain so as to allow one to pass; and after this the party and councillors should lead a campaign of resistance to imposed cuts. If Green Councillors vote for a cuts budget of any kind, then they would be defying the clear and democratically expressed wish and policy of the local party.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This General Meeting notes the Motion passed unanimously (with one abstention) at the December 2015 General Meeting that the Brighton & Hove Green Party supports the production of an alternative Budget for 2015-16 that would protect local services and employment, not cut them. 

The cuts to local services required to "balance the budget" for 2015-16 are the direct result of massive and unprecedented cuts by central government to the local government support grant, cuts which could mean a further cut to the Brighton & Hove budget of over £100 million by 2020.  This will effectively destroy local services as we know them.

The cuts required to balance the budget for 2015-16 alone would require  a restoration of more than £20 million of government grant or a Council Tax rise of over 20%. The proposed 5.9% Council Tax increase is therefore not viable as a means to fight the cuts or defend the vulnerable. It is a regressive tax on the poorest, and it would hardly dent the massive cuts still required. To propose this rise in Council Tax in conjunction with a cuts budget would fatally undermine the Green Party's anti-austerity stance locally and nationally.  It is the worst of all worlds.

We are now seeing a "Green surge" and rising membership especially amongst younger voters, the primary reason for which is our inspiring anti-austerity message. If the only example in the UK of the Green Party in office were to implement a large cuts budget just before the 2015 General Election that would disillusion and alienate many of those new supporters. It is likely it would severely damage not only the local party but the national party's prospects in the election.   The Brighton & Hove Green Party will not support any Brighton & Hove Council Budget for 2015-16 that makes further cuts to local services. We support a no cuts budget identifying how much government grant now needs to be returned to Brighton & Hove to avoid horrendous damage to local services. It is therefore the policy of Brighton & Hove Green party that any budget that makes further cuts to local services should not be voted for by the Green Group of Councillors, nor abstained upon to allow it to pass.

The Brighton & Hove Green Party advocates a strategy of complete resistance to implementing further cuts to local services, including

• A massive communications campaign to explain a) why the Green Party is adopting this policy, b) the devastating effect of the level of cuts suggested for 2015-16 and the years beyond, and c) that Labour and the Conservatives will deliver those cuts because they have no policy or strategy to resist them. 
• Refusal to assist any officials sent by DCLG to enforce a cuts budget upon Brighton & Hove, and wide publicity to explain this refusal.
• Working with the Brighton & Hove People's Assembly, local campaign groups and trade unions to publicise and implement this strategy and to create a focus of resistance to cuts and the austerity agenda.

Brent library privatisation hits the front page and two men named James disagree about what it means

The Kilburn Times (above) puts the possible privatisation of Brent libraries management on its front page.  Management would be handed over to a charitable trust although details are not clear.

The story was first covered on Wembley Matters on January 4th LINK (Will privatisation of Brent Council's  library management damage the service?)  and I published an extract from a blog by Alan Wylie, veteran library campaigner, who made these points about the leisure companies or trusts:

What a Leisure Trust means in practice:

• Leisure services are outsourced to a separate organisation/company. 
• The Council retains ownership of the facilities, which are leased to the Trust.
• Virtually all the savings come from rate reductions and VAT savings, which are much smaller initially because of the high set up costs. 
• Direct democratic control of the service will cease - elected member representation on a trust is limited to less than 20% of the board.
• Company law requires that Board members must put the interests of the leisure trust before those of the local authority. 
• After a year the Trust will usually cease to use council services and will be responsible its own procurement and contracting or corporate and other services.

The move, ostensibly, is to save £160,000 in rates (trusts get charged 80% rather than the 100% the Council will pay), although this is a loophole that may well be closed.

Margaret Bailey, chair of Friends of Kensal Rise Library, told the Kilburn Times that privatising services often ends up costing more:

Savings made on the 80% (rates) rebate will be minimal   and certainly not enough justification for privatising the service. I wish local authorities would fight these cuts together - and harness the support of their communities to do this.

 I agree.

Cllr James Denselow, now in charge of libraries under his Stronger Communities portfolio claims its a change in management structure, rather than privatisation and  'saves us a huge amount of money with rate changes'.  He recognised the sensitive nature of the changes and said the Council would do 'only if we find it's the right thing for us, for our libraries..and our communities.'

James Powney, whose blog has become a lot more interesting since he left the Council, wrote a article on the issue on Thursday morning LINK

Cllr Powney of course was the lead member when half of Brent's libraries were closed. He said that the wording of the officers' report ('established trust') suggests an existing body and the obvious one is that which currently runs Ealing and Harrow libraries:

The phrase "transfer management" suggests something more ambitious.  Not just founding a Trust but having the management taken over by a private company as in Greenwich or Hounslow.  This would be a lot more complicated.  A full procurement would need specification of a contract and a full tendering exercise for what would be a sizable contract.  In itself that would be a substantial one-off cost.  The Localism Act appears to have made this whole issue even more complicated than it was before.  The redundancy of senior management is likely to make the whole process even more difficult. 

This option was discussed when I was on the Executive, and rejected.  The business rate saving was largely a piece of accountancy smoke and mirrors (I understand that the rules may have been partly changed since then), and it seemed to me that all the things a private firm could do to cut costs could also be done by the Council.  Of course, having direct employees also gives you more control and we wanted to ensure the success of the Libraries Transformation Project by having hands on management.  Therefore we only went for the Sports Centre part of the project. 

The two James clearly have different perspectives and it will be interesting to see how this pans out. Meanwhile library staff are rightly concerned about what these vague proposals mean for them, their working conditions and their pensions.  The public should be concerned about what it will mean for the quality of their library service when the number of libraries has been halved and the council are proposing to cut the amount spent on book stock.

Brent Council: Communicating Rubbish

I was incensed yesterday when I saw the leaflet about Brent Council's waste collection that had been pushed through my door.  It put such a gloss on the £40 annual  'garden tax' charge for green bin collection that many people must have thought that it was almost as good as winning the lottery!

It advertised a free bulky waste collection despite the fact that proposals are going before the Council to introduce a charge of £15 for such collections.

The bulky waste collection charge has long been an issue between Labour and the Lib Dems. The Lib Dem-Conservative administration  introduced a charge of £25 and the incoming Labour adminstration in 2010 abolished the charge.

The arguments the then councillor James Powney made against the charge still stand.  LINK

Now Paul Lorber, Liberal Democrat Brent Council leader at the time of the £25 charge, has made a formal complaint to Council officers about the current leaflet. He suggests that the £15 charge was put into the proposals merely so that it could be withdrawn and show that the Council had listened to residents:

I have expressed my concerns as to how the scrapping of the weekly service and the proposed £40 charge for a reduced service has been presented. The latest leaflet delivered to residents continues to provide misleading and incomplete information.

I am disappointed that the misleading information produced by the Council and Veolia has continued. Please treat this email as a formal complaint on the following grounds:

I object to a reduced and chargeable service to be described as 'New' as if it was something positive when in fact residents are being asked to pay £40 for a substantially reduced service with collections just fortnightly during the summer and just monthly during the winter months.

On a separate issue I note that the leaflet is also advertising the 'Free' collection of bulky household items. This confirms the sham of the current budget consultation as the item to charge £15 for this service in the hope of a massive reduction in take up is just a 'sham' as this was put on the list simply to enable the Leader to claim later that this is one service "I have managed to save".

I think that the Council (officers and councillors) are showing a great deal of disrespect to Brent residents in the misleading way you are communicating with them. The leaflets are paid for from taxpayers money and should therefore provide honest information and not to reflect misleading information from the Labour Administration.
 

Brent Labour support campaign on cuts but not refusal to implement them

Apparently Cllr Butt recently advised fellow Labour councillors not to read Wembley Matters as it is 'the enemy'. He is still searching for 'leakers' amongst officers, councillors and members.

Anyway, everyone is going to have to be a lot more careful and not leave documents behind after meetings and avoid any other carelessness with information Muhammed deems the public should not know.

Interestingly, at Saturday's All Brent Labour Pary meeting, a motion was put which if published would go some way to improve Brent Council's tarnished reputation over internal policy.

So here it is.

This is the motion put by Kilburn branch:

This all-member forum notes that the £54 million cut in Brent Council’s funding over the next two years, on top of the £89 million already cut since 2010 will have a devastating effect on jobs and services in the borough. We cannot accept that the Labour Party and Labour Council should take responsibility for passing on this attack, which will inevitably hit the most vulnerable in the borough.
This cut in funding is not just a financial attack, but also an ideological one, stemming from the Tories declared aim of cutting back the welfare state, alongside a reduction of local democracy and centralisation. Their model for local government is the one promoted by Tory Barnet, where the role of the Council is simply to award contracts to outside companies.
 
This assault requires a political, not just a managerial, response from the Labour Party, both locally and nationally.
 
Therefore, the Brent Labour Party, together with Brent Labour Councillors, will:
 
1. Mount a campaign informing all residents of the effect which government cuts are having on local services and jobs, encouraging them to become involved in demanding the return of the money from central government:
2. Meet with Council and other trades unionists, service users etc. to urge them to mount a campaign with them against the cuts;
3. Approach other Labour Councils, in London and beyond, urging them to mount a similar campaign and to coordinate our efforts;
4. Incorporate this campaign into our efforts to win the general election, showing how coalition government policy is affecting jobs and services in the borough;
5. Urge, together with others in the labour movement, the national Labour Party to support such a campaign and to commit to restoring local government funding and democracy, including examining ways of placing the cost on the rich and corporations rather than the most vulnerable;
6. As an integral part of this campaign, Brent Labour Councillors will give a commitment to refuse to make the cuts demanded by central government

The leadership argued that they were already doing most of this and successfully substituted an amendment to Point 6, the most radical part of the motion.

I haven't got the exact wording of the amendment (please send it to me if you have it) but it was along the lines of recognising the difficulties councillors face in making the budget decisions and supporting their efforts.

I would support the motion as it was put (retaining the original Point 6) except for widening the appeal to all Councils as many other Councils under different political control, including the Greens in Brighton, want to see the restoration of local government funding and recognise the devastating impact of the Coalition's local government funding cuts.

Stonebridge child gives Labour Council leaders some home truths

Outsdie Brent Civic Centre last night

One of the children from Stonebridge Adventure Playground surprised workers who had accompanied her to last night’s Consultation event at the Civic Centre. They said what happened ‘made the whole event worthwhile’.

The girl had been scribbling away on one of the comments cards that had been distributed and onlookers assumed she was doodling out of sheer boredom.  But then she took the microphone  and gave an impassioned speech from her notes.  She mentioned the hardship that would be caused to single and working parents, and how the closure of the Adventure Playground  would mean there was nowhere for the community to mix, people would just stay in their flats and not let their children go out. She also mentioned CCTV cameras which she said aren¹t as necessary when young people have somewhere to go.  

The councillors responded that at an earlier meeting the users of the Millennium Centre had spoken up for their centre in a similar way (thereby apparently implying it was pointless trying to argue from a human perspective) 

Doug Lee from the Playground spoke about the six months that kids aren't at school, the length of time the playground has been in operation and the money Brent Play Association has raised on behalf of other groups in Brent (supplementary schools, CVS, Pakistani Workers Association to name just three) 

Glynis Lee said that the council were saying 20% cuts to front-line services but Stonebridge Adventure Playground  was getting a 100% cut. The cuts were going to decimate front-line services, whilst councillors sat in their glass tower taking a 20% rise and people in Brent were suffering.
Although Jo Coburn from BBC Politics, who chaired yesterday’s meetings for a fee of £2,500, wanted to get into the subject of where the cuts should be made, Glynis was having none of it.

She told the councillors they were elected by the people of Brent as Labour councillors and were doing the work of the Coalition. She asked, ‘how do you guys sleep at night?' 

Deputy Leader Cllr Michael Pavey said they did have trouble sleeping but to not go ahead with these measures would be breaking the law and they weren't prepared to do that.  

The Youth Parliament representatives also mentioned the increase in councillors' allowance and Butt responded they wanted to attract the best councillors and not just retired people or those with enough funds to do it.

People in the room also asked about proposals to work with the voluntary sector to continue to provide services in some way, and Anne O'Neil from Brent Mencap pointed out that the procurement process would hinder this unless it was vastly improved. 

An important question was raised from the floor about the use  of  Section 106 money for communities affected by redevelopment. Cllr Butt answered this, unsatisfactorily according to some, implying  that these funds just went into the general pot, and not to the respective communities. 

Welsh School Planning Application Deferred

The Planning Application for the London Welsh School was deferred tonight in order to have a wider consultation with the community local to King Edward VII Park. Officers were also asked to look again at the land swap as it was felt that the land next to Collins Lodge, which slopes up to Park Lane, wasn't equivalent to the land that was being lost.

The issue has been extensively covered on Wembley Matters with many comments. Here are links to previous articles:

London Welsh School seeks new home in King Edward VII Park

Planning Officers recommend granting of planning permisison for Welsh School in King Edward VII Park

Comments in support of Welsh School application to be verified by officers

 Stand up for King Eddie's Park

Update on Welsh School Planning Application

Parkland and open space belong to the people

Campaigners against the use of land in  King Edward VII Park for a school have started a blog called Wembley Champions HERE

 Cllr Sam Stopp has posted his presentation to the Planning Committee HERE

This is what Paolo Di Paolo told the Planning Committee:

This proposal in effect takes away a community sporting facility from local residents and replaces it with a private business operating as the London Welsh School. Their Registered Company Number is 3952000. This sets a dangerous precedent.

At the site visit, Mr Richards said that they will require parking for 9 vehicles daily and will have keyholder access to the park car park. This car park has been closed to the public for many years with access only granted for sporting events, for example, weekly football, park bowls club use or special Council events.

The idea of compensating for the loss of the open space adjacent to the pavilion with the steeply sloping bank next to Colin's Lodge is not comparable and unusable. In fact this will make Colin's Lodge vulnerable to vandalisation and arson. As an attractive notable architectural feature of the park and the wider Wembley area this would be tragic.

The Tree Officer's report has not been available within the submitted documents. As no tree survey was submitted with the application there is a real need for formal proof before this category B Monterey Cypress tree can be removed. Category B trees have the ability to contribute to the quality of an area for up to 20 years. Granting permission without such proof would be a travesty.

Child protection is important. The location is too exposed to the public being in the middle of the park. This would not be a secure site for children. The rear elevations of several Princes Court properties face the bowling green. The proposed site would be a very vulnerable location for the children. e.g. Dunblane shooting occurred because the site was open and therefore vulnerable.

I stop here. Where will the planning department stop at permitting the taking of open space from the people of Wembley and Brent? We urge our elected planning committee members to look at the limited evidence base, lack of transparency in the planning department's provision of supporting statements and timeline of supplementary document submission for this application, alongside the case officer committee report, to ultimately refuse this flawed proposal.

This is the text of Denise Cheong's speech to the Planning Committee:

King Edward VII Park was bought by the council in 1913 (and opened in 1914) to compensate the residents of Wembley for the loss of Parkland at Wembley Park, which was being developed as a high class residential garden suburb. 

2/3 of the alternative sites considered by the London Welsh School are not in Brent. They include Orpington Kent. Only 16% were considered too far for parents. These figures strongly support the viability of the school relocating outside of Brent.

The consulting of only 11-18 Keswick Gardens, 21-32 Princes Court and Park Lane Primary School, (plus councillors and officers) prevented wider park users their right to be consulted for this council owned, but ultimately public sporting space.

The change of use of the bowling pavilion would prejudice use of the bowling green. This application does not include the bowling green, yet there is clear intent to use and restrict access to this public green space. The use of the word “exploit” in supporting documents, mention of “appropriate groups” and exclusion of dog walkers is further evidence of this. The park is a resource for the whole community, not just half of two streets, and should not be exploited by any group. 

There are 202 bowls clubs in Greater London and West Ealing juniors start from 7yrs old.
Former Wembley Bowls chairman, Ron Ferrari, informed me no adverts were placed by Brent Council indicating possible demise and urgent need for members. 

The western half of King Eddie's Park is the only tranquil and quiet open space for local Wembley residents. Many of whom now and will live in high rise flats, with Quintain's proposals, with no open space close by.  

Fundamental changes to the scheme were made, concerning removal of trees, after the consultation period. Application procedure was flawed and may give rise for an application for judicial review.
Parkland and open space belongs to everyone, me, you, you and you. Based on the facts, taking all material planning considerations into account NPPF 74, NPPF 123, CP18, ALGG alongside any doubt as to the transparency of this planning application, there is a case for deferral as supported by Sport England, if not refusal