Green MEP: Panama Papers show UK is at centre of global tax avoidance schemes

Molly Scott Cato MEP, Green Party speaker on economics and finance, has responded to the so called Panama Papers – around eleven million documents held by Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, which reveal how the company has helped clients launder money, dodge sanctions and evade tax. Molly said:

What becomes clear from the revelations contained in the Panama Papers is that it is the UK that is at the centre of the global network of tax havens that facilitates tax avoidance and crime. More than half the companies listed in the documents are registered in British-administered tax havens or the UK itself. This is deeply embarrassing for us as a country and reveals as entirely hollow the Chancellor’s claim to be cracking down on tax avoidance.

If we are to restore our national pride we must see steps taken immediately to deal with the nefarious relationships between apparently respectable companies based in The City and their dubious associates in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. We need to end the convenient anachronism of such jurisdictions: either they should become a part of the United Kingdom and subject to our laws or they should acquire independence. In addition we need to put an end to shell companies and ensure much greater transparency on beneficial ownership.

Support Sweets Way Resistance at Willesden Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning

Sweets Way campaigners are calling for support at Willesden Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning.  They have put up active resistance to Barnet Council's policy of social cleansing.

This video was made a year ago:

Brent FoE meeting on air pollution - its impact and solutions

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

A panel of politicians and campaigners will be discussing air quality at Brent Friends of the Earth's (Brent FoE) monthly meeting at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room in Kilburn on Tuesday April 12th at 7.30pm.

Brent FoE's meeting will discuss the situation with air pollution - which is a serious health threat for Londoners and is a major problem in Brent. It will be a chance to learn about how air pollution is affecting us and to discuss what we need to do to get cleaner air to breathe. The speakers will be: Cllr Eleanor Southwood - Lead member for the Environment at Brent Council, Navin Shah - Assembly Member for Brent and Harrow, Dawn Butler - MP for Brent Central (to be confirmed), Juhaina Junaid from the Pollution Control Services at Brent Council and Ollie Hayes - Campaigner from Friends of the Earth.

Pam Laurance, a Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth says, “Poor air quality in London has a significant effect in shortening the lives of many people. In 2010 almost 9,500 Londoners died prematurely from causes linked to air pollution. The main pollutant is nitrogen dioxide, plus in some areas it is particulate matter, particularly from diesel vehicles, that do most of the damage. The principal source of air pollution in Brent is road traffic emissions, though emissions from residential and commercial heating systems also contribute.”

The discussion will start at at 7.30pm till approximately 9pm, and will be followed by Brent FoE's AGM. Everyone is welcome to attend this free event, and stay for the rest of the group meeting. Light refreshments will be available.

The meeting will be at Watling Gardens Community Meeting Room, 97/135 Watling Gardens, Shoot Up Hill, NW2 3UB (5 mins. from Kilburn tube/buses on Shoot up Hill). For more information see http://www.brentfoe.com or email info@brentfoe.com.

NOTE FROM MARTIN

As the only political party represented at this meeting is Labour  you may want to read what the Green Mayoral candidate, Sian Berry, has to say about clean air for London HERE

Lucozade's spoonful(s) of sugar fails to sweeten residents' opposition Kingsbury Powerleague proposals

Since the battle over the building of the Ark Academy on playing fields in Wembley Park. which united Brent Teachers Association, Barry Gardiner MP and Bob Blackman, then leader of the Tory Group on Brent Council, there have been several other conflicts between schools and residents, including the long running saga over the expansion of Preston Manor LINK

The Kilburn Times LINK  has revealed that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, George Clark MP, is to consider intervention in the case of the expansion of Byron Court Primary School following the referral by Brent North MP, Barry Gardiner.

In many of the cases there have been complaints about the lack of consultation with residents in the neighbourhood of the school and in at least one case the Council has been forced to send out additional letters.

This appears to be the case with the latest proposal for Kingsbury High School where it appears NO letters have been sent out to neighbours and the consultation list is mainly internal to Brent Council and leaves out external bodies such as Historic England:

This proposal is for a commercial multi-sports facility in the grounds of Kingsbury High school comprising:

• One large 11-a-side hybrid football/hockey pitch
• One multi-sport pitch (MUGA)
• Four standard 5 aside pitches
• Two cricket nets
• A Club House
• Floodlighting for the pitches

The facility will be run by Lucozade Powerleague (for some reason on its website notice about the proposal Kingsbury High left off the 'Lucozade'). It is a business rather than a charity LINK  and of course has all the usual contradictions of companies selling unhealthy products promoting sports. Lucuzade has the equivalent of 12-1/2 spoonfuls of sugar in a small bottle LINK

The present grassland playing fields would be hard surface or  astroturf if the proposals go ahead. This is a view of the fields from the back garden of a house in Goldsmiths Lane, Roe Green Village:

The planned development of the playing fields in the context of the locality of Roe Green Village and neighbouring areas:

In exchange for making the facilities available to the school during school hours and a contribution to the refurbishment of existing sports hall and grassed area, Lucozade Powerleague get to rent out the facility with some concessions to community groups.  Readers can gauge the extent of this for themselves:

Kingsbury High and Lucuzade claim that the premises will not be licensed to sell alcohol but independent research shows that only 3 of 48 facilities do not serve alcohol and there appears to be nothing to stop them applying for licensing at a later date - especially if they can argue an economic case regarding the viability of the scheme.

Ark, Preston Manor, Byron Court and now Kingsbury High have all pitched what is seen as the interests of children (school places, additional facilities) against what is labelled (often behind closed doors) as the Nimbyism of local residents.  Increased traffic, noise, light pollution and the loss of open space is cited by residents.

This is pronounced at Kingsbury High where a unique conservation area, Roe Green Village, seems to be standing in the way of immense benefit to pupils at the school in an era of concern about young people's obesity (ignoring, for now,  the contribution of Lucuzade to that obesity).

Roe Green Residents in fighting an earlier application by a commercial company (see video below), offered to work with the school to improve the sports facilties through a fundraising drive, but this offer was not taken up.  The current headteacher of Kingsbury High, Mr Waxman, has reduced his working week and will be retiring in 2017, so this project, if it goes ahead, will be overseen by his successor.

Roe Green Residents have leafleted parents about their reservations on the scheme saying that they felt parents deserved full information about what appeared at first to be a great opportunity for the children. Local councillors' silence on this issue is said to be deafening but Barry Gardiner MP, has been responsive.

In fact of course, although Kingsbury High's academy status means that Council has no direct intervention rights, there is no reason why local ward councillors should not organise some meetings to bring the school, parents and residents together.

The proposal is yet another sign of the growing commercialisation and potential privatisation of schools through the academy programme.  The school will be paid an annual fee by Lucozade Powerleague in addition to the daily provision of sports facilities.

Residents will be taking on Lucozade Powerleague's  powerful public relations company GKA LINK which I am told has been actively lobbying councillors.

The ultimate decision on the planning application will be taken by the statutorily independent Planning Committee which should not be influenced by the council leadership.

Full details of the planning application can be found HERE
  
The video below was filmed some 25m from the Lucozade Powerleague facility at Mill Hill and gives some indication of the light and sound to be expected at Roe Green.

Residents outline their concerns on Wembley 'Twin Towers' development

The view from Park Lane Wembley. Chesterfield House is the building on the left. The highest of the Twin Towers will be 2-1/2 times the height of the flats on the right.

Only three members of the public turned up when Brent Planning Committee visited the site of the proposed 'Twin Towers' replacement for Chesterfield House on Saturday morning.

In summary concerns were:

• Although recognised Chesterfield House needed to be replaced concerns that the replacement was far too tall for the area.
• The building's height removing light from other nearby buildings.
• Concern that the extra dwellings will add to traffic congestion on Park Lane, already a problem, and as no parking on site that the new residents will park on nearby residential streets.
• Concern that vehicles servicing the flats or delivering would have nowhere to park at the busy junction as the present bays would be inadequate for the number of dwellings.
• Increased danger at the junction Park Lane/Wembley High Road which already experiences accidents.
• Concern that the increased population of children from the new flats will not be able to find places at already over-crowded local schools.

During the presentation by the developer, The Hub, we were told that they were in talks to buy the woodland site at the back of Chesterfield House beside the Chiltern Line. This was likely to be developed as more flats but the Hub confirmed that this would be a separate application and that the Twin Towers plan was not dependent on the new purchase.

The unregulated land at the back of Chesterfield House, presently garages, would be used for disabled parking bays for the flats. Woodland is to the left.

I understand that Cllr Sam Stopp (Wembley Central) will speak on the planning application at Wednesday's Planning Committee Meeting.This will be the first meeting of the Planning Committee since Steven Weeks, Head of Area Planning, left the Council.

Residents' 'grave concerns' over Wembley 'Twin Towers' proposal

Impression from the developers's consultation

 Brent Planning Committee will be visiting the Chesterfield House site at the junction of Park Lane. Wembley High Road at 9.40am on Saturday April 2nd. This is the 'twin towers proposal LINK

Planning Committeee members have been sent the following in  advance of their visit by Denise Cheong,  Former Chair, Friends of King Eddie's Park, Friendsofkingeddies.blogspot.com
Wembleychampions.blogspot.com :

Dear Planning Committee members, Wembley Central Ward Cllrs, Preston Ward Cllrs, Hub Group and Council Planning Case Officer

I understand the planning committee are due to visit the above site tomorrow (Saturday 2nd April) morning regarding planning application 15/4550.

I write to kindly urge the Planning Committee to give the following viewpoint due weight during their deliberations whilst they conduct tomorrow's site visit.

Please note during your site visit that (at the time of writing) several local residents from Princes Court and Keswick Gardens Residents Association, as well as members of neighbouring Park Lane Methodist Church are opposed to the height and scale of the proposed scheme.

Whilst residents appreciate the City's need for greater housing provision and welcome Hub Group's proposed donation to the Council for King Eddie's Park, we have grave concerns over the impact of a development that will be (although set back, at its heighest) twice the height of the opposite existing Elm Court flats and nearly three times the height of the existing Chesterfield House office block.

Mr Neidhardt notes in his report that pedestrian accidents have occurred at the junction of Park Lane and the High Road. This is a notoriously difficult junction for local residents to walk across. Please observe the existing pedestrian crossings at the junction during your site visit and consider the impact the proposed will have on the area even with any alterations from Transport For London (TFL) to the junction. Also, kindly observe the existing bus stops in the vicinity on the High Road which TFL note already operate at full capacity. You may also possibly observe heavy traffic queues on Park Lane tomorrow (as discussed at last year's planning committees for planning application 14/4208, heavy traffic from the junction of High Rd and Park Lane down past The Methodist Church and King Edward VII Park is a norm on Park Lane, and further evidence of the real need for this junction to be re-worked).

I await further communication from other resident members of the aforementioned plus neighbouring roads. I will update you all as soon as I have collated such responses and prior to Wednesday 6th April's Planning Committee.

Brent and Harrow GLA Candidates named

The £1,000 deposit appears to have kept out any minor independent candidates in the Brent and Harrow GLA Constituency. The candidates announced today (in alphabetical order) are:

Rathy Alagaratnam UK - Independence Party UKIP
Joel Davison Conservative- The Conservative Party Candidate
Anton Georgiou - London Liberal Democrats
Jafar Hassan -  Green Party
Mahmood Akib - Respect (George Galloway)
Navin Shah - Labour Party

Brent Council clarifies Kingdom flytipping and litter patrols contract proposal

I put a number of questions to Brent Council about the proposed Litter and Flytipping patrols contract LINK which is being discussed at Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday next week.

These are questions and responses:

1.    The report states that the Kingdom operatives will be paid at a lower rate than current Brent staff because they perform a different role. One of the differences cited is that they will not represent the Council in Court as part of their enforcement role. I would have thought that if there is an appeal against a fixed penalty notice or a refusal to pay that the Court would require the officer who spotted the infringement to appear as a witness. Is that your understanding?

The Kingdom role will be to undertake patrols to issue on the spot fines for littering. Our own waste enforcement team undertake more complex and weightier investigations, mainly of illegal dumping offences. The two activities are intended to be separate but will complement each other. Our own officers are professional enforcement officers who will investigate and prepare cases and then attend court to present them. It's complex and usually done without witness evidence.

In terms of Kingdom acting as witnesses, last year they issued over 50,000 FPN’s nationally and had less than 30 trials whereby the offender pleaded not guilty. Approximately 75% were paid which negates the need to prosecute. Out of the remaining 25% the vast majority plead guilty by letter or personal appearance or are found guilty in absence. The remainder of cases are remanded for a trial. In these instances, there may be the need for the issuing officer to attend court as a witness only. They would not be preparing and presenting the case.

2.    Can you clarify the total number of staff that Kingdom would deploy on the contract. Will there be a supervisor and manager in addition to the four ‘on the street’ operatives? Would the supervisor also be deployed on the street? Would there be a separate Kingdom admin support worker or would that be provided by the Council?

The Kingdom model proposes the following dedicated personnel. The supervisor would be deployed on-street as necessary.

            4 Enforcement officers

            1 Senior Enforcement Officer

            1 Supervisor / Team Leader.

            1 Admin officer

3.    As the contract was not put out to competitive tender is it possible to give like for like costings for  in-house provision of the service?

The costings from Kingdom and their anticipated resource allows for a like for like comparison with an in house service. However, each job role would be subject to the council's job evaluation process. That review has not been undertaken so the exact cost of the staffing element is not known. Also, any assumption that existing resource can be used to support an in house model is not tested. One benefit of the Kingdom model is that it complements rather than draws from existing resource. An in house model would obviously see the council retain all fines income so it could create more revenue, although experience in Ealing suggests that non-payment may be a more significant factor with an in-house service. The downside is that it would transfer the financial risk from the contractor to the council. The council would need to commit to the cost of staff and equipment without the absolute certainty of recovering that cost. Also, it is hoped such an initiative would correct behaviour over time so less fines would be issued. A contracted pilot arrangement offers better flexibility in that it can be changed or terminated without liability.

What's intended is a pilot and this will allow us to test the model and costs. When the full procurement process commences, any in house option would be considered alongside a bid from Kingdom (should they bid) and any other firm. The benchmarking from the pilot will ensure we have a clear idea of costs to compare.