Election meeting on zero hours contracts Wednesday 29th April

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) are at the receiving end of  a shift to zero hours contracts.  The local branch of the UCU based at the College of North West London have organised this public meeting to discuss the issue with parliamentary candidates for Brent Central.

Note: I am aware that the spelling should be Learie Constantine. Apologies, but this was on the original pdf received from the UCU. MF

Recruiting Brent Council's Chief Executive – ‘no illegality in the process’ but...

Guest posting by Philip Grant

Last month’s blog about the permanent Chief Executive job at Brent Council finally being advertised LINK generated a great deal of interest. Among the comments (129 at the last count) some serious concerns were raised, so I wrote to Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, Fiona Alderman, to bring them to her attention. Four weeks later I have received a reply, the key sentence of which is as follows:

‘I have considered the issues which you have raised but am satisfied that there is no illegality in the process currently underway for the recruitment of a Chief Executive.’

Although I have to respect her opinion that there is nothing illegal in the recruitment process, the legality was not what I had written about. The purpose of my email was summarised as follows:

‘It is very important that the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive at Brent Council, to lead by example as Head of Paid Service, is not only conducted fairly, but is seen to be conducted fairly.’

I had referred to several “anomalies” on the practical side of the recruitment process ‘which, if not addressed, are likely to mean that it will not be seen to be conducted fairly.’

There are some aspects of the recruitment process which may already be unfair, but which it is too late to change. The briefing pack issued to potential applicants makes clear that the post has been designed with the current Leader of the Council in mind. Part Four of the “Person Specification”, which candidates must show they meet, is actually headed “Chemistry and ‘fit’ between the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council.” The previous permanent Chief Executive, Gareth Daniel, was in the post for fourteen years and served a number of Council Leaders, from different political parties, before leaving because of irreconcilable differences with Cllr. Muhammed Butt, just four months after he was elected as Leader in 2012. And yet, unlikely as it may seem, Brent Council could elect a different Leader at the same meeting as it is asked to approve the appointment of a new Chief Executive recruited to ‘fit’ with Cllr. Butt’s ways of working.

One source of potential unfairness is the small number of people who will actually have any influence over who is chosen for the post. These will include the current interim Chief Executive, Christine Gilbert, and Director of HR, Cara Davani. Questions have already been raised about appointments of their “cronies” to other senior Brent Council posts LINK  The fortunes of Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani also appear to be closely linked with those of the Leader of the Council, and Cllr. Butt has not yet answered the question of why he is still “protecting” these two senior officers, when he has known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case since at least September 2014. That question was put to him in February 2015 LINK

Good online detective work by “Wembley Matters” readers has shown that there are close links, during their time at Tower Hamlets Council and at Ofsted, between Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani, and Shahidul Miah of Bloomsbury Resourcing Ltd. That one-man company is one of two recruitment consultants handling the search for Brent’s new Chief Executive, along with Davidson & Partners. It is unclear from the briefing pack what the respective roles of the two consultancies are, but the involvement of Mr Miah does raise concerns that the external and internal sides of the recruitment process may not be independent of each other.

Under the Council’s Constitution (Standing Order 77) the shortlist of candidates who will be interviewed for the post will be drawn up by the (interim) Chief Executive, ‘or another officer nominated by him or her’, most probably the Director of HR. The list is then submitted ‘to the Chair of the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee’. If the Chair agrees the list, ‘then the shortlist prepared by the officer shall stand.’ If not, ‘a meeting of the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee shall be held to determine the shortlist.’ The Council’s website shows that the Chair of this “SSASC” is Cllr. Muhammed Butt, so once again the trio of the Council Leader, Ms Gilbert and Ms Davani hold the power to decide who will, or will not, be considered for the job.

The composition, and Chair, of the SSASC was one of the main points which I raised in my email to Ms Alderman. Under Brent’s Constitution, the SSASC comprises 5 councillors, 'at least one of whom shall be a member of the Cabinet'. This wording appears to have been designed as part of a system of “checks and balances”, to ensure that power over senior staff appointments is shared between Executive and backbench councillors. While it does not say that there should be only one member of the Cabinet on the sub-committee, as the Constitution also gives Cabinet members other rights to object to proposed appointments, it seems odd that the SSASC currently comprises four Cabinet members, plus the leader of the official Conservative group.

As stated above, Cllr. Butt chairs the SSASC (to be fair, his predecessor, Cllr. Ann John, did so before him, although with only one, or at most two, other Executive members, and at least two members from opposition parties on the sub-committee). I have suggested that Cllr. Butt should allow a backbench councillor to replace him as Chair of the SSASC for the recruitment of the new Chief Executive, and that one or two other Cabinet members should appoint non-Cabinet substitute councillors for this process. Brent’s Chief Legal Officer did not comment of this suggestion, other than to thank me ‘for [my] observations’.

The SSASC will interview the shortlisted applicants, and its Chair must then notify to the Council’s Director of HR ‘the name of the person to whom it wishes to make an offer together with any other particulars the sub-committee considers are relevant to the appointment.’ It is at this point that a clear conflict of interests arises, because the HR Director then has to notify every member of the Cabinet of these details, and of ‘the period within which any objection to the making of the offer is to be made by the Leader on behalf of the Cabinet to the [Director of HR] and the Chair of the sub-committee.’

Part of the “checks and balances” on the fair appointment of senior officers built into Brent’s Constitution is to separate the roles of Chair of the SSASC and Leader of the Council, as one heads the sub-committee which choses the preferred candidate, while the other heads the Cabinet which has the right to review and object to that choice (even though that may seem unlikely in practice, when half of the Cabinet are also currently members of the SSASC). If there were an objection, the Leader then has to give notice ‘of any objection which the Leader or any other member of the Cabinet has to the proposed appointment’ to both the HR Director and the Chair of the SSASC (imagine the scene: “I, Cllr. Butt, as Leader of the Council, give you, Cllr. Butt, as Chair of the SSASC, notice …”). In that case, the SSASC would have to reconvene, ‘to consider the objection and to consider whether to confirm the appointment.’

While Brent’s Constitution does not say that the Leader of the Council and Chair of the SSASC cannot be the same person, it is difficult to see how the recruitment process can be seen to be fair if this is the case. It could be argued that having the two roles held by the same person allows the process to dealt with more quickly and efficiently; but that argument could also be used to combine the roles of judge and jury in the criminal justice system, which many would feel could make that system less fair or just.

For the appointment of a Chief Executive, the proposed candidate 'must be approved at a meeting of the Full Council before an offer of appointment is made'. The proposed date, shown in the briefing pack, for the SSASC’s final interview panel is 18 or 19 May, and the next Full Council meeting is the Annual Meeting on 20 May. The final point I made to Ms Alderman was that this would not give the elected members of Full Council given sufficient time to consider properly whether they should approve the proposed appointment. I suggested that the date of the final interview panel should be brought forward by a few days, and that Officers should ensure that all members of the Council are notified with details of the person who it is proposed should be appointed as Chief Executive in good time (at least several days) before the Full Council meeting on 20 May. I do not know whether any changes have been made as a result of these suggestions.

Brent’s Chief Legal Officer is also its Monitoring Officer, a role which includes trying to ensure that the Council’s committees, sub-committees and officers do not act in a way which breaches codes of practice, or which may give rise to maladministration or injustice. I hoped that by bringing the points above to Ms Alderman’s attention, the potential unfairness in the recruitment process for the Chief Executive post could be avoided. It is not my intention to criticise Ms Alderman, who may have done all that she can to achieve this end. The overall responsibility for ensuring a fair appointment lies with the interim Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council.

We will find out next month whether my efforts have helped to produce an appointment which is seen to be fair, or whether those at the top of Brent Council are determined to bring it further into disrepute. If it appears that the person proposed as the new Chief Executive may not have been recruited fairly, I hope that councillors will be prepared to challenge his or her appointment at Full Council, rather than just nod through their approval of it.

Vote Green in Hampstead & Kilburn and reject Austerity Plus and Austerity Lite

Green voters in Hampstead and Kilburn are being told on the doorstep by Labour  that the outcome is 'too close ro call' and that they should vote Labour to prevent a possible Tory victory.  Green candidate Rebecca Johnson has been well received by voters at hustings and on the street.

Here she gives her reaction to that 'advice':

Rebecca Johnson, Green candidate for H&K will pledge to protect the NHS from privatisation, funding cuts and TTIP this afternoon

A cause the Greens support

38 Degrees members in Hampstead and Kilburn are to present a petition this afternoon outside Waitrose, close to Finchley Road station, asking candidates for the constituency to protect the NHS if elected.  Rebecca Johnson, Green Party candidate in H&K will be there.

The event starts at 3.30pm and is expected to last about 30 minutes.

This is the text of the petition:

Our NHS is precious. Please do everything you can to protect it, including:

* Stopping privatisation
* Making sure it has the funding it needs to provide high quality healthcare to everyone
* Protecting it from US health corporations by keeping the NHS out of TTIP

Why is this important?

Our NHS is precious. We all rely on it to care for us and our loved ones. We want to protect it for the future, and we don't want to see it run down or sold off.

Over the past few years, NHS funding has been squeezed so much that services are suffering. This winter, hospitals up and down the country have declared "major incidents" because they're struggling to cope. And now most hospitals are warning that their budget for next year has " reached the point where patient care is at risk."

Meanwhile, the government is letting profit-hungry companies take over more and more NHS services. At at a time of squeezed budgets, this is the last thing the NHS needs. We want an NHS where patient safety is put first, and where the NHS is run for the public good.

TTIP, the planned trade deal between the EU and the USA, could threaten the NHS further. If TTIP opens our NHS to American private healthcare companies, we could see even more privatisation and a slide into more US-style healthcare. We want the NHS excluded from TTIP.

Tulip, Dawn and War

Prior to Ed Miliband's speech today there had been press comment that foreign policy had played little part in the General Election campaign. Here is Brent we did have a cross-Brent hustings on War, Peace and the Middle East where some of these issues were raised. LINK

'Unintended consequences' of military intervention is as pertinent to Labour as it is to the Conservatives given Blair's intervention in Iraq. What is suprising to me is the lack of comment on Chilcot and the decision to put it on the back burner until after the election. Surely the findings should have formed a centre piece of this General Election?

At the hustings Tulip Siddiq (Labour candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn)  gave specific undertakings about war and said that she had voted for Ed Miliband precisely because David Miliband was too associated with Tony Blair and the Iraq War.

Dawn Butler was not invited to that particular hustings but was asked about her views at a subsequent election meeting. She said she had been against the war in 2003 and had voted against an inquiry in June 2007 because she thought it would have impacted on the British troops that were deployed in Iraq at the time.

This is the motion that Dawn Butler voted for. Only 8 Labour MPs voted against.

  This House, recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task

Earlier in 2006 she had asked Tony Blair a question in the House of Commons which seemed to indicate some disquiet about policy in Iraq.

Butler was subsequently seen as a government loyalist. She seconded the Queen's Speech in November 2007 and became Assistant Chief Whip in September 2008.

Attending the hustings in Brent there have been a number of occasions when candidates have been asked if they would defy the party line (and the party whips) on issues of principle. It is clearly an issue that concerns local people and the shadow of Iraq, it seems to me, is behind much of that concern as Iraq and the war figured quite large in the Brent Central battle between Dawn Butler and Sarah Teather.

Butler's Green challenger in Brent Central, Shahrar Ali, has claimed in his election material that he, rather than Dawn, is Teather's natural successor as far as issues of war and Israel-Palesrtine are concerned.

Over in Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq is challenged by Green candidate Rebecca Johnson, who has a long and distinguished record in the peace and disarmanent movement and is a member of Women In Black.  LINK

Footnote: In case you are wondering, Barry Gardiner, speaking in 2003 after Robin Cook resigned over Iraq stated: 'The Prime Minister has behaved with absolute integrity' but had a different position by 2011 over Libya:  LINK

BBC June 7th 2011

Amid growing unease about Nato's role, MPs are expected to press for a statement on Libya on Tuesday when Parliament returns from its 10-day recess.

Although he voted for the Iraq invasion in 2003, Mr Gardiner says the parallels between the two situations are "ironic".

"Every single argument that has been used over the last eight years to decry what happened in Iraq is being used to justify - with much less justification - what is going on in Libya," he argues.

Despite the frequent military interventions of the Blair years, he believes Labour should be looking further back into its history for its foreign policy principles.

"There is a historic role for Labour that is not being followed through here - as effectively an anti-war party that recognises war is the worst option and something that should be avoided becoming embroiled in at all costs."

And while in no doubt about the nature of the Gaddafi regime, he worries that the current intervention sets a worrying precedent for the future.

"The danger is we are being drawn into a position, in terms of what we should be doing internationally, of it 'does not matter because it is only Gaddafi'."

Possible sports funding opportunity for Brent charities and community organisations

An evening session with Wembley National Stadium Trust (WNST) will be held on Monday 27th Apr at CVS Brent, with Stewart Goshawk, Chief Executive and a presentation on what to look out for in the application process.

WNST is an independent grant maker, funding charities and community organisations delivering sports activities.

All sports recognised by Sport England are eligible for funding - for a list of recognised sports, click here. 

The next round is open for Brent charities and community organisations and the deadline is Friday 22nd May (noon). Two awards are available - 

1. Community Awards (up to £2,500) - ideal for local clubs and groups.
2. Strategic Awards (usually up to £25,000) - for larger organisations and major capital projects.

To book your place, please visit https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wembley-national-stadium-trust-qa-grant-fundraising-tickets-16596319037?ref=ebtn, or please send an email to support@cvsbrent.org.uk

Light refreshments will be provided (tea/coffee).

Jean Lambert: Ongoing EU-funded search & rescue programme needed in the Mediterranean

A ten-point action plan has been revealed by the European Union in the wake of large-scale loss of life in The Mediterranean, promising to both increase control as well as rescue operations. The European Commission said the plan, approved by EU Foreign and Interior ministers at an emergency meeting in Luxembourg, will be presented at a summit today, Thursday the 23rd. Commenting, Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London said:

It could not be clearer that immediate action is needed to prevent further loss of life. We need an ongoing EU-funded programme for search and rescue of refugees because individual governments can no longer cry crocodile tears while at the same time refusing to support rescue missions. We must of course work to combat despicable smugglers, but acknowledge that desperate people take desperate measures. What worries me about this plan is the focus on smugglers and on return programmes. It looks as if we are just pandering to fears instead of really getting to the root of the problem.

No-one should be fooled, FRONTEX is border control, not a rescue operation. Unless Libya and Syria can experience prolonged stability people will continue to do what they have always done throughout history: try and reach safety. While the EU is not above criticism, it is our own Government that decides the level of support for the Italian Government.

The European Parliament will have a co-decision role on any proposal to adapt the EU budget, and Greens call on all political groups to consider this in the ongoing negotiations on the 2016 EU budget and put pressure on the European Commission and EU governments.

Next week the plenary agenda of Parliament in Strasbourg will include a formal  Oral Question ( for which Jean was a co-signatory) with Council and Commission statements on the situation, Jean concluded:

We need a common European approach based on solidarity and humanity. The overwhelming majority of refugees are not in the EU: if Germany had the same proportion of refugees as Lebanon, there would be more than 20 million to support. The real crisis here is for those seeking sanctuary, not for the EU.

UPDATE: Brent Council finds 'deferred payment' solution to Robbie Clark care costs

Brent Council posted the following press release yesterday:

A former Second World War prisoner of war who campaigned to stay in his own home and receive social care from a specialist live-in carer, has had his wishes granted.

Robbie Clark, 96, who survived the Nazi death march across Europe in 1945, needs 24 hour a day social care, and has fought to receive a more expensive care package than the one normally offered.
Around 187,000 people signed a petition calling for Mr Clark to be allowed to stay in his house.

We worked with his family to offer a solution which means Mr Clark can stay in his home while receiving the care he wants and not pay a penny in his lifetime.

Phil Porter, Director of Adult Social Care, said: “Our offer means Mr Clark can stay in his own home and receive the care which he wants, through a live in carer. He won’t have to worry about the cost, but neither will tax-payers have to foot all the bill.”

The ‘deferred payment’ is a new option available to councils, which only came into effect at the start of April 2015, enabling them to help meet the cost of care for older people in this way.

Under the proposal, the cost of the additional care will eventually be reimbursed to the council from the proceeds of the sale of the property.

UPDATE Saturday April 25th

Today the Daily Mirror publishes a story following up Brent Council's statement that includes an on-line poll on the issue. LINK

These are key quotes from the story from Mike Clark. Robbie Clark's son and Phil Porter, Brent Director of Adult Social Care. This story arouses strong emotions but can I ask readers to be restrained in how they frame their comments so as not to hurt people personally. Thank you.

Mike Clarke


Angry son Mike Clark, 58, said: "We handed the signatures in to the council on Thursday and we scheduled a meeting about them increasing their funding for my father's care, not deferred payment options, next week.

"Now they're claiming he's 'had his wishes granted', which is absolutely ridiculous.

"He has had no such thing. From what I understand, the deferred payment scheme will mean that they can get away without paying any more for his care, and when my father passes away, they will take the difference, plus a percentage and other fees, from the sale of his house.

"The issue isn't that he doesn't want to pay for his care at all - the issue is that Brent Council are trying to get away without actually spending any more money on a national hero."


Phil Porter
 
However, Phil Porter, Brent Council's Director for Adult Social Care, said: “Robbie Clark, supported by 187,000 petitioners, asked the council to find a way for him to stay in his home, receive his care by a live-in carer and not to have the worry over how it will be paid for.

“We have listened to Robbie and his supporters. 

"We have made an offer of a deferred payment that gives Robbie exactly what he asked for. 

"The council has offered to meet some of the costs of his care with the remaining costs set against the equity in his house. 

"Although there will be less equity for Robbie’s heirs when the property is eventually sold, Robbie himself will have all his wishes granted in a way taxpayers can afford."