Butt engages with top Prevent 'experts' but not with local concerns

Local community groups involved in Monitoring Prevent in Brent are still awaiting a public statement critical of the Prevent Strategy from Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council. Meanwhile he is ascending the ladder of Prevent experts...

Let's hope he communicates the concerns of local organisations and tells his fellow speakers why the Prevent Strategy is counter-productive, silents open discussion and helps feed both Islamophobia and disaffection.

Cllr Allie warned over magazine reading during Brent Council budget debate - but no reference to Standards Committee

Brent Council has refused to refer a complaint about a councillor's conduct made by well known  Brent Twitter activist @PukkahPunjabi.

Pukkah Punjabi's  sent the following email to Fiona Alderman, Brent Council Chief Legal officer on February 23rd 2016:

I would like to register a complaint at the conduct of Councillor James Allie during tonight's (22nd Feb) council meeting. During the entire budget debate, which given the current financial situation is of the utmost gravity to Brent residents, Cllr Allie was seen reading a magazine (the Catholic Herald) which bore no relevance to the proceedings. When I took the photos attached to this email he showed me what he was reading and was unapologetic about the fact that he had just spent the past hour paying no attention to proceedings.

I wish to have this matter investigated by the Standards Committee as I believe Cllr Allie has shown a disregard for the residents of Alperton who elected him and complete contempt for all the residents of Brent who will soon be feeling the impact of the budget decisions taken tonight and which Cllr Allie regarded as undeserving of his time.

I look forward to your response.

Fiona Alderman replied on March 10th 2016

I write further to your complaint in relation to Councillor Allie’s conduct at the Full Council meeting on 22^th February 2016. 

I have considered the complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct complaints procedure and have consulted the Independent Person, the Chief Whip and the Chief Executive. In all the circumstances, I have decided that on this occasion your complaint does not warrant any further action under the Code of Conduct. I have, however, reported your complaint to the Chief Whip for the Labour Group and written to Councillor Allie to advise him that the conduct you complained of must not be repeated.

In exercising my discretion, I took into account one of the comments you tweeted about Councillor Allie after the meeting on 22 February 2016, which he drew to my attention, which refers to Councillor Allie in insulting, derogatory and defamatory terms. Such comments are unacceptable and are unhelpful in holding Members to account.

The last paragraph is of particular interest because it appears that Alderman is judging the legitimacy of a complaint based on the person making the complaint rather than the substance. The admonishment in the last sentence to someone who is a member of the public and not a councilllor or council employee is extremely high-handed - who is Fiona Alderman to instruct a member of the public in their conduct on social media?

Does this mean that if another member of the public had complained that the complaint would have been referred to the Standards Committee?

Double stndards?

Note

If anyone is interested in the 'insulting, deregatory and defamatory' tweet, just use your imagination and knowledge of @PukkahPunjabi's tweeting style and the interests of practising merchant bankers.

Lucas disappointed and baffled by Labour failure to support NHS Reinstatement Bill

Caroline Lucas was ‘extremely disappointed’  today by the failure of MPs to turn up in Parliament today to debate the NHS Reinstatement Bill after tens of thousands of people had written to their representatives asking them to back the bill. 

The Bill was only debated for around 15 minutes and wasn’t voted on. If more MPs had been present in Parliament then a ‘closure motion’ on the Bill being debated previously could have been called, thus ending Tory filibustering which delayed discussion of the NHS Reinstatement Bill.

The Labour Party did not publicly back the bill. In a letter LINK sent by many Labour MPs to constituents, the party’s MPs said:

“Whilst I support the broad objectives which lie behind this Bill, I am concerned about the scale of structural change and costs associated with any further major reorganisation of the NHS.”

Lucas said:

“It’s extremely disappointing that we didn’t have a chance to properly discuss or vote on this bill today. Though I pay tribute to the SNP and to those Labour MPs who did take the time to come to Parliament today for this crucial debate, the Tories who filibustered the bill have done our democracy a disservice. But the Labour Leadership should have done more to move this bill forward too. I had hoped they would have publicly committed to it and asked their MPs to come to today’s debate – by doing so we could have ended the filibustering and properly discussed the future of our NHS.

“The Labour Party’s stance line on the Bill is somewhat baffling. Some of their MPs back the bill, but not enough.

“On the one hand Labour's standard letter to constituents says they agree with the principles of the bill, but at the same time it suggests they say that they would remove its heart. If Labour want to gut the Bill, and take out the key provisions that save the NHS from the market, then the Labour Shadow health team, should be clear about that.

“Meanwhile, the Tory privateers, not least Andrew Lansley and His successor Jeremy Hunt can relax. So long as we leave the market in the NHS in place, the likes of Virgin Care Ltd and Optum (an off-shoot of US health giant, United Health) will find their way in. 

“The NHS is in crisis - and this week tens of thousands of people have asked their MPs to say ‘enough is enough’. But the enthusiasm of the public hasn’t been met by the political commitment that’s needed to save our health service.

“This Bill isn't going away and I urge MPs to join the campaign to reinstate the founding principles of a truly public NHS. 

[1] https://calderdaleandkirklees999callforthenhs.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/john-mcdonnells-office-tells-labour-mps-not-to-vote-for-nhs-bill/

Now Tulip Siddiq says she won't show up to Save the NHS tomorrow

Thanks to  a Hampstead and Kilburn constituent for forwarding this. Cameron's Tories haven't got a huge majority, we are supposed to have a Left leadership in the Labour Party, but their MPs won't turn up on a vital issue. What would Bevan say?

Has anyone got a message from Dawn Butler?
 

-->

Good evening,

I am writing in response to your email, in which you asked whether I would attend the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill on Friday 11th March. Thank you very much for taking the time to write to me about this.

I could not agree with you more that the Health and Social Care Act, which was passed by the Tory and Lib Dem Government in 2012, needs to be repealed urgently. Spending on private and other providers has gone through the £10 billion barrier for the first time in the history of our health system, and unnecessary costs to our NHS have skyrocketed: the implementation of the Act itself has cost the taxpayer some £3 billion. When the Prime Minister took office in 2010 he inherited a health system where patient satisfaction was at all-time high, but as today's newspaper headlines starkly show, he has squandered this legacy: the NHS recorded  its worst ever performance figures in January of this year.

Quite rightly, ever since this Act was passed there have been a number of attempts, mostly by Labour MPs, to repeal the harmful elements of this legislation. The NHS Reinstatement Bill is another such attempt, and many Parliamentarians have tried to get it passed into law. This is the second such attempt to secure its passage, and I regret given there is a Tory majority in the Commons, it will be voted down by Conservative MPs.

I would have attended the debate at Second Reading tomorrow, but I am afraid that I have a number of prior commitments in the diary which mean that regrettably, I will not be able to make it. I am holding my constituency surgery at JW3 Community Centre tomorrow morning – this surgery has been scheduled for more than a month. In the afternoon, I will be speaking at an event to encourage more women into politics at the Women of the World Festival (see: wow.southbankcentre.co.uk/whats-on/how-get-elected-1785). Were it not for these diary commitments, I would certainly have stood up to be counted on the day of the vote.

In any event, however, the only way we can secure the reforms our NHS needs is by unseating this Tory Majority Government. Last May, I stood on a Labour Manifesto which promised to repeal the Health and Social Care Act and to abolish the rules which force NHS commissioners to put contracts out to private tender. We would also have reversed the provisions which permit hospitals to earn up to 49% of their income from private patients. I still remain firmly committed to these principles, and I will take every opportunity as your MP to implement the change we need to save our health system.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate you drawing this debate to my attention, and I can only reiterate my full agreement with your concerns about the Health and Social Care Act.

Thank you again for getting in touch, and please do write back if you have any further queries.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn

To receive updates on my work in Parliament and across Hampstead and Kilburn, please click here to sign up to my eNewsletter.

Twitter: @tulipsiddiq

Website: tulipsiddiq.com

Victory for BDS campaigners as G4S sells Israeli subsidiary

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.

For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.

Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.

Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel. 

Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said:

We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.

This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.

G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.

G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month

G4S has announced that it will be selling its subsidiary, G4S Israel, “in the next 12 to 24 months”.
For the last four years, G4S has been the target of a sustained campaign by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups involved in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement because of its connection with the Israeli occupation.
Campaigners have attended the company’s Annual General Meeting in London every year for the last three years, dominating the AGM proceedings with questions to the board about G4S’s involvement in Israeli prisons.
Universities across the UK, and globally, as well as local councils have made decisions not to renew security contracts with G4S and not to consider new tenders from the company while it continued to do business with Israel.
Sara Apps, interim Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “We welcome the decision by the G4S board to sell G4S Israel, and hope that the company will fulfil this pledge in the timescale given.
“This decision is a vindication of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its tactics of peacefully putting pressure on companies to divest from the Israeli occupation.
“G4S was one of the biggest targets of the BDS movement, and its decision to disinvest from Israel is a landmark victory in the ongoing struggle for Palestinian freedom and self-determination.”
G4S follows other BDS targets, including Veolia and Orange, in announcing its decision to sell its Israeli subsidiaries in the last 12 month
- See more at: http://www.palestinecampaign.org/13160-2/#sthash.W7oXzE7e.dpuf

Barry Gardiner won't take part in Friday's NHS Reinstatement Bill debate despite sympathy with overall objectives

Like other constituents in Brent North I have written to Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to support the NHS Reinstatement Bill when it is debated on Friday afternoon. I think most constituents would be understanding if he were to cancel his regular surgery in order to do something as important to the people of Brent as  help ing Save the NHS from current Conservatove attacks. Has anyone had a response from Dawn Butler or Tulip Siddiq?

Dear Mr Francis,                                                                                                                                     

Thank you for your recent correspondence asking me to be in the House of Commons for the second reading of the NHS Reinstatement Bill 2015 on Friday 11 March.

I very much regret that due to existing constituency commitments, I will be unable to be present. I am holding one of my regular surgeries for constituents this Friday, but I thought it would be helpful if I set out my views on the Bill.

As you may know, this Bill was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill last summer and as such, it is subject to the constraints associated with the parliamentary timetable. Even if the Bill were to receive its second reading this week (and there is no guarantee that it will even be debated), there is little prospect of the Bill becoming law in this session due to a lack of parliamentary time.

I am supportive of the overall objectives of the Bill. In particular, I support the principles behind duties outlined in Clause 1 of the proposed Bill – namely restoring accountability to the Secretary of State for the delivery of health services and the requirement that a comprehensive health service continues to be provided free of charge at the point of use.

The encroaching privatisation of the NHS must be halted and decisions about NHS services should never be called into question by any international treaties or agreements, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

However, I am concerned that some of the other parts of this Bill would require another wholesale reorganisation of the health service. The recent top-down reorganisation of the NHS, brought about by the Coalition’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, threw the system into turmoil, cost over £3bn and eroded staff morale.

So whilst I support the broad objectives which lie behind this Bill, I am concerned about the scale of structural change and costs associated with any further major reorganisation of the NHS.

If the Bill were to proceed, I would want to see it amended so that it avoids the problems of a further reorganisation but implements only its key principles.

In line with our manifesto commitment at the last election, Labour is already committed to repealing the competition elements of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and ensuring that patient care is always put before profits, and collaboration before competition.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Barry

Barry Gardiner MP
Member of Parliament for Brent North
Shadow Minister for Energy & Climate Change
Tel: 020 7219 4046 | Fax: 020 7219 2495
House of Commons - London, SW1A 0AA
www.barrygardiner.com

Residents enraged as Planning Committee approves controversial applications

Increase in schoool size to more than 1,000 pupils

Doubled in size to more than 840 pupils

Temporary  (2 year) 4 storey school

Retrospective permission for 2.4m fence aroud public space

361 dwelling tower blocks next to Civic Centre/Olympic Way

Last night's Planning Committee had a ridiculously heavy agenda with Chair Cllr Marquis, like a teacher  bravely concealing her irritation with councillors (pupils) who at times were sleepy and clearly wishing they were somewhere else, and at other times making rambling contributions way off the point,  struggled to make progress. Meanwhile the clock ticked away.

As always residents attending their first Planning Committee because of a local issue, this time the Uxendon Manor and Byron Court school expansions,  were enraged when they thought their concerns were being ignored. There were cries of 'Is this democracy?', 'Are we in North Korea?'. 'You are a disgrace.'

Byron Court  took up most time  (see posting below).  Cllr Keith Perrin made a presentation on behalf of residents. When Cllr Marquis asked if he had been approached by anyone about the application he answered 'between 1,000 and 2,000 residents'.  About 1,400 of those who had put their addresses on a joint letter about the application had not been contacted by the Council about the officer's report on the planning application. He derided the plans to use the Northwick Park car park for parents describing its impracticalities and producing the numbers to back this up. At one point the officer's response made him put his head in his hands in despair. His mood wasn't  helped when Cllr Marquis failed to give  committee members a chance to ask him questions about his presentation although this was remedied later.

Several members of the Committee declared that they had received phone calls about the application from Barry Gardiner MP that afternoon. The application was narrowly approved. I made it four for, 3 against and 1 abstention.  Loose ends will be tied up by officers regarding some of the conditions requested by Cllr Perrin. Members of the audience were reprimanded by Cllr Marquis when they scoffed in disbelief at Byron Court's Executive (she insisted on the title) Head Teacher's claim that the school travel plan was working well and that the revised plan, when the school had over a thousand primary pupils, would be equally effective.

The increased traffic arising from school expansion was also a major concern of residents around Uxendon Manor in an area with poor public transport links and questions were asked for each application regarding the need for additional school places in that particular area. The response was far from clear. In addition there were questions about overflowing sewers at Uxendon voiced by John Poole a long-time resident that were shrugged off by the development agent.

Cllr John Warren spoke for residents about the  Marylebone Boys School temporary building in Brondesbury Park and he also raised the issue of flawed school travel plans and estimates of impact on public transport.  He raised the issue of the height of the building (4 storeys) and its design being out of character with the neighbourhood as well as the noise with an increase from160 to 480 pupils on the site.

Marylebone Boys School application to fence in public space around its existing building in the former Kilburn branch of the College of North west London was approved without any representations.

It wasn't until about 10.30pm that the innocuous sounding 'Yellow Car Park' application was heard.  Actually a huge development next to the Civic Centre with 361 rabbit hutch style  dwellings and retail and community space the only query  from members was about the possible provision of a nursery in one of the units. There were no public representations and a short presentation from Quintain. It went through in about 10 minutes in contrast to the earlier item.

There will be  134 one bedroomd, 109 2 bedroomed and 52 3 bedroomed flats at market rents. 8 one bedroomed, 10 2 bedroomed and 21 3 bedroomed at social rent.  12 one bedroomed, 9 two bedroomed and 6 3 bedroomed at 'intermediate' which the report states will be 'affordable'.

'Park and Stride' won't mitigate congestion at expanded Byron Court Primary school

This is one of the speeches delivered at tonight's Planning Committee on the application to expand Byron Court Primary School. The Commiittee later approved the application with some issues regarding potential conditions, raised this afternoon  in an email by Cllr Perrin, and later in his speech to the Committee, to be followed up by Officers. Several members of the Committeee said they had received phone calls from Barry Gardiner MP about the application.

-->

My name is Suzanne D’Souza.  I am the Chair of the Sudbury Court Residents’ Association.  I am here today representing the 1500 residents who object to the expansion of Byron Court School.

We understand that the Council have an obligation to provide schools places.  However, the Council also have an obligation to protect residents from overdevelopment.  And building one of the largest primary schools in the country, in the middle of a residential estate, accessible only by narrow roads, is an overdevelopment.

There are many reasons we object to this proposal, but as I only have 2 minutes I will focus on transport.  

The school currently has 3 forms of entry and the traffic problems at school run times are significant.  Brent Council’s own Transportation Officers visited the school and confirmed this.  

The Officers’ view is that the parking and traffic flow issues on these residential streets is a major concern for pupils and pedestrian safety.  Their observations confirm current unacceptable and unsafe conditions on Spencer Road, and surrounding streets.

Over many years, the school have tried, and failed, to solve the problems.  Our local police team have tried, Council Officers have tried, and our local Councillors have tried.  All attempts at solving the traffic problems have failed.  

This is at 3 form entry.  Now imagine we almost double the size of the school and bring in children from further away so their parents are forced to travel by car.  This isn’t just a logistics problem, it’s a health and safety problem.  It is dangerous.  

Brent Council’s own Transportation Officers have acknowledged that there are serious safety problems at present, which will only be exacerbated with the conversion of the school from 3FE to 5FE, and the Travel Plan submitted was considered seriously inadequate.

The Officers go on to say the use of a Park and Stride scheme based on the Northwick Park Car Park would mitigate the negative impact of congestion.  This is described as an essential factor to support the school expansion.

However, the report states that the recent trial of this had a low take-up.  Despite senior school staff campaigning for parents to use Northwick Park car park for park and stride over recent weeks, very few parents have complied. 

This begs the question then, how this, the apparent key to the acceptability of the scheme in highway terms, is to be enforced?

There are a great many reasons why the use of Northwick Park Car park for Park and Stride will not work.  Cllr Perrin will take you through the detail of this.  All I have time to say is that if Brent Council Transportation Officers have said this is an essential factor to support the school expansion, and we know that it cannot work, then the logical conclusion is that this expansion is not feasible and, from a Planning perspective, cannot go ahead.