Proposals that might breathe a little more life into Brent Council meetings

Brent Full Council meetings have become a bit of a joke with a familar structure of leader grandstanding from both sides, ritual party political exchanges in a pale imitation of the House of Commons that get worse nearer election time, brown-nosing questions from Labour backbencher to Cabinet members, and motions that the public are not able to see in advance.  It is a long time since there has been a debate on a petition from the public.

Not to forget of course the regular attempts by John Warren's Conservative Group to wrest the front row seats from Suresh Kansagra's Conservative Group. After their failure they spend the rest of the Full Council meeting gleefully inserting knives between the shoulder blades of  nominal colleagues seated in front of them.

Changes suggested in an officer's report introduce measures that may improve things to some extent. It is noteworthy that a decision on whether to accept a deputation rests with the Chief Executive, advised by the Chief Legal Officer.

 


3.0  Detail

.         


Questions from members of the public 


.        3.1  It is proposed that a new Standing Order will be inserted which allows members of the public to ask questions of Cabinet members. The revised Standing Order which in the Appendix 1 appears as Standing Order 40 would allow for questions to be submitted in writing and circulated with the agenda for full Council. A written answer would be circulated by close of business the day before full Council. One supplementary question could be asked during the full Council meeting. 


External speaker

.        3.3  Provision is included in Standing Orders for an external speaker to be invited to attend full Council and speak for up to 10 minutes on an issue of relevance to Brent and for there to be an ensuing debate for up to 45 minutes. This will not be a standing item on the agenda but will be added to the agenda with the agreement of all Group Leaders. The relevant Lead Member will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and will submit a motion in accordance with the normal rules on motions. Speeches by other members will not exceed 2 minutes.

  


Non cabinet members’ debate 


.        3.4  It is proposed that, following a recent trial of such a debate, at two Full Council meetings, that there should be a regular debate for a maximum of 21 minutes on a topic selected by backbench members. Up to six members can speak for up to three minutes and the Lead Member will be permitted to speak for up to three minutes and shall provide a written report, for information only, at the next Full Council meeting with what follow up action has been taken. 


Petitions scheme 


.        3.5  It is proposed that the existing petitions scheme is retained but in addition there is provision for ward members, or a chair of a scrutiny committee to make reference to the receipt of a petition to Full Council. In the event that a petition submitted via the Brent petition scheme attracts more than 200 signatures then Standing Orders will allow for a debate at full Council to be requested. 


Motions 


3.6. It is proposed that the timescales for motions will be amended so that motions must be submitted 5 days in advance and that amendments to motions must be submitted close of business the previous working day. This will allow members of the public to have available to them printed copies of the motions and amendments and to follow the debate more easily.

Deputations

.        3.7  It is proposed that the Chief Executive should have a power to determine whether or not a deputation should be accepted, on advice from the Chief Legal Officer. 


Leader’s report 

 

.        3.8  It is proposed that the Leader should have the opportunity to present an Annual report to Full Council. The Leader will be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and there will follow a debate for 20 minutes. Opposition Group 
Leaders will be able to speak for 2 minutes each and all other members will be able to speak for 2 minutes each until the time runs out.

Questions to Cabinet Members

.        3.9  It is proposed that the existing Standing Order is amended so that the original question and answer are provided in written form at the meeting of Full Council and there is provision for a member to ask one oral supplementary question lasting up to 1 minute and for the Cabinet member to reply taking up to 2 minutes. 


Privately owned 'public' space an issue for Mayoral election as Greens fight for democratic rights to the city

Proposed Elvin Square, Quintain, Wembley Park

 
Many of the regeneration schemes in Brent, especially the Quintain development around Wembley Stadium, boast of new open space in the form of squares, piazzas etc. The sting in the tail is that these are privately owned public spaces and the public's rights are unclear to say the least.

Sian Berry, Green Party candidate for Mayor of London, has pledged to introduce rules to ensure that new publicly accessible spaces in the capital are governed by the law of the land.
Her modification of the London Plan would prevent controversial projects such as the proposed Garden Bridge excluding the public at the whim of its owners. It would also stop any future absurdities such as the situation at More London, where Assembly Members had to negotiate for eight years before they could do TV interviews outside City Hall.

She said: “As more and more of London is redeveloped, it’s vital that public spaces are preserved for the public’s use in the most democratic way possible.”

Her announcement came in advance of yesterday’s Space Probe Alpha event near City Hall,  attended by novelist Will Self, comedian Mark Thomas and “guerrilla geographer” Daniel Raven Ellison. The event highlighted the fact that the adjacent More London development is a so-called privately owned public space (POPS), where photography, public speech and protest are banned.

Similar POPS are proposed for a growing number of projects including the Broadgate complex at Liverpool Street, Kings Cross Railwaylands and the controversial Garden Bridge, which will not be a public right of way even though £60 million of public money has been committed to it.

Sian Berry, who attended Saturday’s event with Green AM Baroness (Jenny) Jones, said: 

I’m proud to support a broad coalition of thinkers, writers and speakers at Saturday’s event to show how our rights to access and enjoy public space, including exercising our rights to protest, are being curtailed by arbitrary corporate rules that are not currently able to be challenged by the community.

As Mayor, I’ll reassert our right to enjoy and govern the public sphere in the public interest.

 She plans to introduce new rules within the London Plan which will mean new publicly accessible spaces must be governed by local authority by-laws. Her proposals will not prevent developers arguing for restrictions on types of activity to protect residents and businesses from problems, but will mean that any such rules will need to be formulated transparently and accountably.
 
Academic Anna Minton, an organiser of Saturday’s event, said: 

These privately owned places are taking over towns and cities all over the UK but especially in London where there’s so much development going on at the moment, directly threatening democratic rights to the city.

Her fellow organiser Dr Bradley Garrett added: 

Where public land can not be sold off to private interests, it is often now being controlled under Public Space Protection Orders, which criminalise activities like busking and rough sleeping. These quasi-legal orders target the weak, the poor and the vulnerable in our communities.

REVEALED: IKEA''s tax avoidance - more complicated than its flat-pack instructions?

A new report commissioned by the Greens in the European Parliament has revealed that furniture multinational IKEA has dodged €1 billion in taxes over the last 6 years using onshore European tax havens.

IKEA is using a series of tax loopholes in different European countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, to avoid paying taxes. Molly Scott Cato MEP, a member of the European Parliament’s special committee on tax, said:

Just like its flat-pack furniture, assembling a tax dodge is simple if you know the right tricks. And it’s easy to tuck away out of site where tax administrations will barely notice it. This report deconstructs the massive scale of IKEA’s tax avoidance practices. 

Ikea Bremt Park

This is a company which is held in some affection by British people, so what is revealed will come as a shock to many and risks damaging IKEA’s reputation with UK customers. It is time that corporations such as IKEA realised that being an ethical company goes beyond checking the credentials of suppliers and treating your staff well. Complex tax avoidance schemes are unethical and British people expect companies to pay a fair share of tax to fund the services they rely on.

Scott Cato  has joined other Green MEPs in signing a letter to the EU competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, and tax commissioner, Pierre Moscovici, presenting the report as evidence and urging the Commission to carry out a further investigation to verify possible infringement of EU law. Molly said:

This cynical ‘tax hopping’ is reprehensible and we want the European Commission to fully investigate if and how it infringes on EU law, and take action to address this. EU finance ministers, for their part, should work immediately on trying to recoup the tax revenues, which have been denied to them.

Greens also say that a Corporate Tax Package published by the European Commission at the end of January will not go far enough in preventing IKEA using its different tax loopholes. Molly concluded:

There is an urgent need to change the regulatory framework which facilitates corporate tax avoidance in Europe. We badly need public country-by-country reporting rules for all sectors to provide transparency and ensure the tax strategies of corporations can be properly scrutinised. 

We also need a minimum corporate tax rate to end the race to the bottom of tax dumping in Europe. Such measures require the active cooperation of EU governments and most have so far shown no enthusiasm for truly tackling corporate tax avoidance.

Details of new uplifted Brent councillor allowances for 2016-17

Perhaps it is not a great  public relations strategy to be discussing a 1% increase in councillor allowances at the same Full Council Meeting which will be agreeing a budget that cuts services, but that is what will happen on February 22nd LINK

Apart from the uplift there are other changes due to the proposed revised Scrutiny arrangements (see below). It is also proposed that councillors will be able to claim travelling and subsistence allowances for conferences they attend outside of the borough. This will be set at the same level as council officers.

In a move that might not sweeten relationships between the two Conservative Groups on the Council it is proposed to remove the  deputy leader allowance for the Conservative Group (led by Cllr John Warren) from Cllr Carol Shaw. Instead £9,000 will go to the leader of the Brent Conservative Group, Cllr Suresh Kansagra.

The report reminds councillors of the principle behind the allowance scheme:

 Members are reminded that the 2014 Report advocates the setting of allowances at a level that enables people to undertake the role of councillor while not acting as an incentive to do so. It is equally important, as acknowledged, that there should not be a financial disincentive. 
It is also worth mentioning that in 2014 Members allowances were set at a reduced, or much reduced, level than the amount recommended by the independent panel. The difficulty in increasing allowances for Members given the current financial austerity, was recognised by the independent panel

These are the proposed new allowances for 2016-17:

BASIC, SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CO-OPTED MEMBER ALLOWANCES WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2016

Basic Allowance

Payable to all councillors = £10,100

Special Responsibility Allowances
(No more than one allowance per member)  This is in addition to the Basic Allowance.

1. Leader of the Council = £39,354


2. Deputy Leader of the Council = £28,681


3. Other Cabinet Members (x6) = £18,898


4. Chair of the Scrutiny Committee = £14,140 (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016)


5. Vice-Chair of the Scrutiny Committee = £5,050 (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016)


6. Chair of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £14,140


7. Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £14,140

8. Vice-Chair of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £5,050


9. Vice-Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Community and Well- being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £5,050


10. Members of the Scrutiny Committee (x6) (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016) = £3,202


11. Members of the Scrutiny Committees (x12) (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £3,202


12. Chair of the Planning Committee = £14,140

13. Members of the Planning Committee (x6) = £3,234


14. Chair of the Standards Committee = £2,155


15. Co-Chair of the Youth Parliament = £2,155


16. Chair of the Pension Fund Sub-Committee = £2,155


17. Chairs of the Service User Consultative Forums (x5) = £2,155


18. Chairs of the Brent Connects Area Consultative Forums (x5) = £4,873


19. Members of the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Committee (x15) = £2,155

20. Member of the Adoption and Permanency Panel = £3,234


21. Member of the Fostering Panel = £3,234


22. Leader of the Principal Opposition Group* = £12,913

23. Other Group Leader(s) = £9,000


24. Group Whip for the majority group with over 50% of councillors = £5,583


25. Deputy Whips for the majority group (x2) = £2,155


26. Mayor = £9,090


27. Deputy Mayor = £7,070 

*For the purposes of this Scheme this is the second largest group of the Council. If there are two or more opposition groups of the same size, it is such group as the Council shall decide.

Co-opted Member Allowances

1. Chair of the Audit Committee (non-voting) = £423


2. Independent member(s) of the Standards Committee (non-voting) = £423


3. Education voting co-opted members of the Scrutiny Committee (x4) (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016) = £224


4. Education voting co-opted members of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (x4) (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £224

The introduction of two Scrutiny Committees is the main source of the increase in spending on allowances.  The overall budget cannot be predicted because it is not possible to forecast claims under the new conference expenses system and because only one special allowance can be paid even if a councillor takes on several roles.  The allocation of these roles will not be known until after the AGM.

The allocation of roles has been controversial in the past with accusations of unfairness to councillors with an independent mindset and favouritism towards the compliant. The increase in the number of potential roles may satisfy more of the 56 strong Labour Group.

With the leadership of the Labour Group (and therefore the Council)  to be decided at the AGM in May things could become quite interesting.

Brent admits single Scrutiny Committee failures and proposes a change to two committee system

Less than two years after the adoption of the controversial decision to have just one Scrutiny Committee in Brent proposals are to go before the Cabinet to have two Scrutiny Committees. If adopted this would go to the May Council AGM.

The proposal outlines the issues that have arisen from the single committee structure, some of which were forecats by a guest blog on Wembley Matters in May 2014 LINK:

.        The purpose of moving to a single Scrutiny Committee meeting on a frequent basis was to enable a more consistent, holistic and streamlined approach to all scrutiny activities commissioned by a single committee. The introduction of a single committee to replace the previous four themed scrutiny committees also made a considerable saving in terms of member allowances. Prior to May 2014 each scrutiny committee had a chair, vice-chair and six members with respective allowances. The annual potential cost of each committee was £38,020 in member allowances, making a total for the whole scrutiny function of potentially £152,080. The current cost of member allowances for a single scrutiny committee is potentially £36,190 making a potential saving of £115,890 on the previous model. These costings are maximum potential costs only as members already in receipt of a special responsibility allowance would not be entitled to a second special responsibility allowance for their scrutiny role. The costings nonetheless provide a useful illustration of the indicative costs implications. 


.        It was considered that operating separate scrutiny committees produced a fragmented approach to scrutiny with each committee developing its own work programme which did not always reflect the cross-cutting aspects of complex policy issues. It was also felt that a single committee would be a more effective use of the finite officer resources available to support scrutiny given the pressure on resources. 


.        However after nearly two years of operating the single Scrutiny Committee structure, the anticipated advantages have not outweighed the logistical issues of monthly meetings and has resulted in a concentration of scrutiny activities into a relatively small group of members and officers. 


.        Having one committee responsible for all scrutiny activities has meant that the committee has not developed in depth specialism and understanding of services or key policy agendas. With a wide variety of issues being considered at each meeting the agendas can be incoherent and this makes it difficult to develop continuity on specific subjects or issues between committee meetings. 


.         In particular the move away from themed committees has resulted in less active engagement of service areas in working constructively with scrutiny members as there is less perceived ownership of one corporate Scrutiny Committee. This has both distanced service departments from scrutiny and meant that less members overall are activity engaged in debate and discussion on the policy issues and performance of Council services. In practice the current model means that only eight members are actively engaged in scrutiny discussion on a regular basis (although other members who are not part of the formal scrutiny committee do contribute to task groups). Previously around 30 non–executive members regularly contributed to a scrutiny committee at least once a quarter. 


.        The single Scrutiny Committee model has also impacted on the development of a productive scrutiny relationship with statutory partners, particularly in relation to the duties of the Council to scrutinise the provision of local health services and partnership work on community safety. It has proved difficult to accommodate a consistent work programme on health issues, children’s services and adult social care within the single work programme. This has limited the development of an in depth understanding of these complex and critical service areas, which was noted in the findings of the recent Ofsted inspection of Brent’s Safeguarding and Looked After Children’s services. 


.        The disadvantage of a single Scrutiny Committee structure could not necessarily have been foreseen. Brent is still the only Council in London to operate a single scrutiny committee structure, although three others have a main committee with themed sub-committees. However as the Council enters the next phase of change with the development of the Brent 2020 Vision and the programme of outcome based reviews, it is vital that we reconsider the most appropriate scrutiny structure which will facilitate the effective engagement of members in shaping the future direction of the Council via the Scrutiny function. This is particularly important given the political composition of the Council and the challenging nature of the issues the borough faces. 


The report goes on to propose a two committee structure to remedy the situation after setting out the role of Scrutiny:

 

.        There are a number of key objectives which any new scrutiny structure should be designed to achieve. These are:-

·      To enable non-executive members to develop a thorough understanding of key policy and service issues which supports effective and constructive scrutiny of performance and decision-making across Council services and meets the statutory requirements of scrutiny. 


·      Maximises the number of Members engaged in regular scrutiny activities and enables non-executive members to contribute to the shaping of Council policy at the right point in the policy development process. 


·      A structure that covers both the breadth of internal and external issues but also provides sufficient scope for the committee to develop specialisation and become experts in their subject areas. 


·      The frequency of scrutiny meetings is aligned to the decision-making timetable and enables high quality reports to be produced with scrutiny input made at the right time in the development of options and proposals. 


·      Can take a holistic view of partnership, performance and resourcing issues in relation to the individual service or issue under scrutiny. 


·      Enables clear accountability of Lead members and senior officers for decisions and service performance. 


·      The scrutiny function should be responsive to the views and concerns of service users and residents, actively seeking their opinions to shape their work programme. 


·      Is properly resourced and supported by senior officers and services within the Council and the contribution of scrutiny members is a valued part in the process of defining the Council’s future policy direction. 


.        3.15  In order to achieve these objectives it is therefore proposed that the future Scrutiny committee structure should, as set out below, be more closely aligned to the organisational structure of the Council as well as providing more opportunity for in-depth scrutiny.

 
Proposed Scrutiny Structure 


The proposal is to have two scrutiny committees combining the following remits:- 


·      Community and Well being Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover Housing, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the statutory responsibilities with regard to scrutiny of local health services and major reconfigurations of provision. It would also scrutinise the children and young people’s service, partnership work undertaken by the Children’s Trust and scrutiny of Safeguarding arrangements. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). The four voting education co-opted members and the two non voting education co-opted members would be part of this committee. 

·      Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee 

This committee would cover corporate resources, (including Customer Services, Policy, Partnerships and Performance, Procurement and IT) as well as regeneration, environment and community safety. The committee would be composed of eight elected members (seven from the Labour Group and one opposition group member which is consistent with current political balance arrangements). 

The indicative cost implications in respect of special responsibility allowances are set out below. As previously stated, however, these costings are potential maximum costs only and actual costs are likely to be lower as some of the members will already be in receipt of a special responsibility allowance. 
In addition, in accordance with the provisions of the Members’ Allowance Scheme, a 1% uplift in allowances has been factored in. On this basis the total potential costs are £40,614 higher than the current scrutiny structure. 


2 x Chairs allowance at £14,140
2 x Vice Chairs at £5,050
12 x SRA allowance for committee members at £3,202

Total

£28,280 £10,100 £38,424

£76,804

  

The full report can be found HERE

Should Greens and Labour 'think the unthinkable' to topple the Tories?

Following on from the last article this is another Guest Blog, this time  from Davy Jones. It was first published by Labour Briefing LINK  I am no longer a member of the Brent Green Party Committee but need to make it clear that this is not to be seen as representing the views of Brent Green.  It is a contribution to a discussion which is also happening elsewhere (see Michael Calderbank's Facebook discussion of a Progress report by Danny Dorling.
 

JEREMY CORBYN’S AMAZING VICTORY in the Labour leadership election has rightly revived the question of how Greens and other progressives can work together with Labour. This was not easy during the recent General Election, when Labour nationally was supporting austerity and was well to the right of the SNP, Plaid and the Greens. Potentially, all that has now changed.

“There could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.”

As someone who stood for the Greens against a left Labour candidate in Brighton Kemptown, I am acutely aware of the need for us to avoid dividing ourselves against the most reactionary government in my lifetime. The Tories received the support of less than 25% of the electorate.

They are also trying to hold onto power permanently by redrawing the boundaries and hastening individual voter registration. We therefore have to “think the unthinkable” to topple the Tories.

The historic link of the Labour Party to the trade unions has entrenched the notion of it being the sole party on the left. Most other European countries can boast significant alternative left parties. Almost uniquely, the UK still retains the First Past the Post system for national elections, which is deeply undemocratic and reinforces the two-party domination of elections.

It is vital that Labour under Jeremy unequivocally comes out in support of proportional representation. This would at a stroke make it far more likely that joint work and electoral pacts might be considered across the left. But it would also signal that Labour understood that it risks never being elected and forming a government under the current electoral rules.

Above all, members of Labour, the Greens, the SNP, Plaid and other left currents need to come together in campaigning work – against austerity, tackling climate change, defending the NHS, bringing railways back into public ownership. This will help to overcome accumulated sectarianism, lack of goodwill and trust. Only then will electoral alliances or other bold steps feel realistic and essential.

Out of such collaboration, it would be logical to identify the key areas of policy agreement of Corbyn’s Labour, the Greens, SNP and Plaid – and to discuss in a constructive way where differences remain on other key issues.

From such discussions a Progressive Policy Platform could be developed across the parties of the left. There could be negotiations over whether an agreed single candidate could be found to stand on that platform to take on the Tories, with other parties considering whether they would stand down or run merely a token local campaign.

Possible Issues for Collaboration and a Progressive Policy Platform:

• Tackling climate change – supporting renewable energy, opposing fracking and nuclear energy; removing subsidies from fossil fuels
•  War & Peace – opposing military interventions in the Middle East; no to replacing Trident; ending the global arms trade
• Europe – for a progressive democratic Europe of social justice and solidarity
• Austerity and cuts to public services – supporting those fighting against the cuts, especially the attacks on local council services and democracy, and for increased investment in public services; closing tax havens and loopholes, forcing big companies to pay taxes and reforming the banking sector
• Privatisation – opposing it in the NHS and elsewhere, and for bringing other key services, such as rail, energy, academies, back into public ownership
• Housing – opposing Right to Buy, supporting private sector rent controls, and a massive capital programme of house- building including making existing homes energy efficient
• Democratic rights – Opposing the Trade Union bill; support for proportional representation; opposing the Immigration Bill and supporting refugees; for a fully elected second chamber.

“An even more radical option, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party...” 

Others on the left have suggested an even more radical option, though many Green and Labour members will be aghast at the suggestion, namely that the Green Party affiliates to the Labour Party in the same way as the Co-operative Party is affiliated.  Labour claims to be the broad church of progressive politics, it is argued – so why not invite the Greens (and maybe also the SNP and Plaid) to a affiliate if they wish to do so?

The parties would remain independent, but through affiliation, members would stand for election as Labour or Labour Greens, just as people currently stand as Labour or Labour and Co-operative Party members. So there could be Labour Green candidates in many areas to avoid splitting the anti-Tory vote.

Clearly, this would be a non-starter unless and until Jeremy Corbyn is able to ensure the Labour Party nationally adopts consistently anti-austerity and pro-environmental sustainability policies, as well as a thorough democratisation of the Labour Party itself.

No doubt, opponents will come up with lots of reasons why serious collaboration between Labour and the Greens will not work. But one thing is clear: the current situation of division across the left is not an option – unless we are prepared to put up with the most reactionary Tory Government for 100 years continuing in power, with its neo-liberal policies of trashing the planet and the economy. “Just one more push” simply does not off­­er any solution.