Join conservation work at the Welsh Harp on January 22nd

Friends of Welsh Harp support the activities of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre where  you will learn how to manage the habitats in the area. Almost all of the activities we do focus on improving the natural habitat of the 5 acre woodland for biodiversity, or make sure the outdoor space  is safe for the 30 plus schools Thames21 works with in the area.

All welcome. Under 16’s need to be accompanied by a responsible adult.   Please bring a packed lunch. Tea and Coffee will be provided.  Exact Meeting location will be at the education centre.

The paragraph immediately below describes one of the previous activities. The exact activity of the day will be selected and emailed out to everyone on the mailing list the week leading up to the event.

We are going to be continuing forming glades as we did during the first successful event. Thank you to all of those who made that event a success! A glade is an open area within a woodland. A lot of the glades around the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre are choked with Ivy, as a consequence, biodiversity is not as high as it could be at ground level within the woodland.

Since July 2016 volunteers have:

1.       Formed glades around the woodland area removing ivy to make way for grassland. This increases biodiversity dramatically;
2.       Created educational circles in the woodland  for the schools using the Education Centre;
3.       Cutting back vegetation along the main road creating a path off the road so children don’t have to walk on the road;
4.       Maintaining the ponds so grass species do not take over where the water should be;
5.       Removing small trees from the wild meadow so the wild meadow habitat, which we don’t have much of at the environmental centre, is not reduced.

If you are not on the mailing list and you wish to be, please email billy.coburn@thames21.org.uk to know exactly what we are going to be doing on the day.

Greens to stand in Copeland on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty platform

After the controversy over the Green Party's decision not to stand in the Richmond Park by-election there has been an ongoing debate in the party about the pros and cons of a progressive alliance. Local parties are autonomous and it is their decision on whether to stand a candidate.

The Green Party will contest the Copeland by-election on an anti-nuclear and anti-poverty campaign.

Members of Allerdale and Copeland Green Party made the decision to stand last night (January 12th) at the local party’s AGM and a candidate will be selected on January 24th.

Clare Brown, chair of Allerdale and Copeland Greens, said:

We feel it’s vitally important to offer a vote to those people who want to see a fair and sustainable future for the area.
 

There are clear differences between us and the other parties and we welcome this opportunity to campaign on our priorities, which include sustainable energy and standing against nuclear power, as well as anti-poverty measures and exposing the lie of austerity.

With Labour looking set to select a pro-nuclear candidate the Greens will campaign for clean power in Copeland.

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

The Greens are the only party in Copeland campaigning against nuclear power, to defend the NHS and for a close relationship with Europe.

Voting Green is a vote for a renewable energy revolution which would create thousands of jobs in Copeland.

Allerdale and Copeland Greens are dedicated to ending poverty and inequality in their local community and creating a fairer society by putting forward the bold policies we so desperately need.

Brent CCG takes another step towards endorsing STP this afternoon after Brent Council gives its approval to strategy

Brent Clinical Commissioning Group is set to move forward on the the controversial Sustainability and Transformation Plan this afternoon at a meeting starting at 2pm at the Chaplin Road Centre.

The public can attend. Tickets HERE

The Governing Body will receive this statement from the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board:

Statement from the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board

The Brent Health and Wellbeing Board supports the priorities set out in Brent CCG’s Commissioning Intentions 2016/17 especially their linkages with the Sustainability and Transformation Plan and their ability to address the real health needs of Brent residents. The Board will support the CCG in ensuring the delivery of these priorities results in high standards of care and enhanced access and that integrated care offers the best possible outcomes for Brent. 

Cllr Krupesh Hirani, Chair of Brent Health and Wellbeing Board

Meanwile, perhaps rather late in the day, Brent Central Constituency Labour Party is holding the following meeting:

The Future of Local NHS Services

Dear Brent Central Labour Party member,

Happy new Year!

You are invited to attend our first Brent Central Labour Party General Committee meeting of 2017.

All members are encouraged to attend, although only delegates to the General Committee will be entitled to vote. 

Date:   Thursday 19th January
Time:   7.30 - 9.30pm
Venue: Christchurch Nursery, St Albans Road, Harlesden NW10 8UG

Duffy wins place on Scrutiny Committee

Cllr John Duffy has won a place on Brent Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee after a surprise vote in the Labour Group.  I understand that he defeated Cllr Roxanne Mashari, who recently resigned from the Cabinet, by 16 votes to 12.

The vote took place after the Labour Group refused to endorse a move by the leadership to have the nomination ruled out of order on the grounds that it had been received late.

In an email to members of the Labour Group Cllr Duffy had said that he was standing because it was important that the Scrutiny Committee had independent minded people who would be proactive in ensuring that the Cabinet be called to account.  They should be able to analyse information and costings and have some understanding of local government finance.

He claimed that the Committee needed to be bolder and more inquisitive and less concerned about procedures and more willing to take on board what those making representations to it were saying. .

Cllr Duffy was not at the meeting himself as he was delayed by the tube strike.

The Labour Group decision appears to represent a loosening of Muhammed Butt's grip on Labour councillors and a recognition that many difficult and controversial decisions are being made without the necessary discussion and scrutiny.

NHS EMERGENCY RALLY AT DoH Thursday 12th January

From the People's Assembly

The NHS crisis has reached a new level. In the last few days the Red Cross declared a 'humanitarian crisis' in the NHS and were forced to intervene. This Government has knowingly and wilfully created the crisis in the NHS. Hospitals are underfunded, social care has collapsed, which puts more pressure on hospitals, staff are overworked and conditions are deteriorating.

The Governments drive to privatise the NHS will only make this situation worse. We must take action to defend our NHS or we risk losing it forever.

Over the next few weeks there are some key events/actions building up to a massive #OurNHS National Demonstration on Saturday 4 March.
Please do all you can to make sure they are as big as possible.

Over the next few days we're calling on all local groups and campaigns to do an emergency action at a local hospital.

In London this Thursday, we're organising an emergency rally at the Department of Health from 6pm.

Hunt Must Go - Rescue Our NHS
Emergency Protest - 6pm, Department of Health, Whitehall London
Invite your friends on Facebook

Organised by Junior Doctors Alliance, The People's Assembly, Health Campaigns Together

Saturday 14 January, Nationwide Day of Action

We're asking local groups and campaigns to set up an emergency rally or protest at local hospitals across the country. A series of leafleting actions for the National Demonstration have been organised already, you can find details on the Facebook event here. If you want to add to the list of flyering sessions and actions please email office@thepeopelsassembly.org.uk so we can add to the list and promote.

Saturday 28 January

London Rally & Protest - Hands off our NHS 12:30 Old Palace Yard. Invite your friends on Facebook here.

Saturday 4 March, #OurNHS NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION

*For a fully funded, publicly owned, NHS & social care service
*No cuts, no closures, no privatisation
*End the pay restraint for NHS staff

Assemble: 12pm, Tavistock Square, London March to Parliament

Transport is being arranged from across the country, full details coming soon. Called by Health Campaigns Together & The People's Assembly

Brent Council, tax haven companies and an alleged fraudster - Cabinet business item

Despite warnings about dealing with off-shore companies by the late Cllr Dan Filson and Philip Grant in July 2015 LINK the Cabinet is due to back a deal over the three parcels of land that make up the proposed development at Bridge Park whcih includes a replacement Sports Centre, a hotel and housing.  The companies are General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) and Harborough Invest Inc.

Filson pointed out that the companies were not registered at Companies House but instead were overseas registered, a Luxembourg Holding Company and in the British Virgin islands. This meant that the usual financial checks could not be carried out.
The founder and chairman of General Mediterranean Holdings is Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi. In 2003 LINK Auchi was convicted of fraud following his involvement in a $504 million corruption scandal centred on the French oil company Elf Aquitaine which Wikipedia says was described as 'the biggest political and corporate sleaze scandal to hit a western democracy since the second world war.'
Auchi was given a $2.8 million fine and a 15 month suspended jail sentence. Filson warned that the council is dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

The Guardian has alleged that Auchi has links with the Labour Party. LINK

After an account of the Cabinet meeting appeared on Wembley Matters Clr Filson made a comment about the Cabinet discussion, part of which read:

The wider issue of the ethics of dealing with tax haven companies wasn't touched upon at all nor the fraudster angle. I understand Councillor Pavey's position that it needs government action to deal with tax haven companies (to say nothing of persons being company directors of overseas companies who, by my book, should be disqualified from holding any positions of trust in any company trading or owning land in this country).

However Brent can have its own policies; but what should they be here? The land south of the North Circular Road at Stonebridge Park has been a derelict eyesore for a couple of decades. Brent can engineer development here by intervention using such land as it has as a bargaining tool. If we take the ethical route and don't treat with tax haven companies will we get better or worse terms from other companies? Conceivably could Councillors be surcharged for not getting "best value" in a deal? Will any action happen on this site at all for another decade?

I don't know how I would respond on these issues. My disappointment was that no attempt has been made to address them before this particular decision came to Cabinet despite the identity of these 2 companies being known for some time, years even. So the Cabinet was obliged to agree to a deal involving these two companies without a financial appraisal in front if it and without a stated policy on dealing with tax haven companies. It leaves an unpleasant taste.

The new Cabinet briefing states LINK: 

The report provides an update and seeks approval to enter into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with the “Purchaser”, a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH – a Luxembourg-registered business) as the parent company and Harborough Invest Inc (a British Virgin Islands based business), who already own part of the development site as the second guarantor of the Purchaser’s obligations under this CLSA. 


As detailed in the body of the report, officers from Brent have undertaken detailed negotiations with GMH to establish if the possibility for Brent to take a greater part in the development, and to share in the financial rewards beyond the capital receipt for the land. Unsurprisingly, GMH and their partners would see another equity investor as further complicating a project that has already been in gestation for longer than expected. It is also possible that the partners would see another equity investor as unnecessarily diluting the financial returns that can be made from the development. 


As the Purchaser is a newly-created subsidiary company with no assets, then there are risks to Council if it fails to perform its obligations under the CLSA and associated documents, as there would be no substantive entity against which to take legal proceedings for breach of contract, etc. To mitigate this risk, both GMH and Harborough will be named as “Guarantors” in both the CLSA and the Overage Deed, being the two documents which contain substantive obligations upon the subsidiary company. As such, both GMH and Harborough will guarantee to perform the obligations of the subsidiary under these two documents in full (as if they themselves were named as the main contracting party), should the subsidiary fail to so perform any obligation. Updated financial checks against both companies prior to exchanging the CLSA, will be carried out to ensure that they have sufficient financial strength to perform the obligations under the CLSA and Overage Deed if called upon to do so as a result of the subsidiary’s default

Further, As GMH and Harborough are both foreign-registered companies, GMH’s lawyers will obtain (at GMH’s own cost) formal legal “opinion letters” from reputable law firms qualified in Luxembourg and BVI respectively in favour of the Council, to confirm that these guarantee provisions will be legally binding upon both companies, and that the Council could pursue either or both company through the English courts if they in turn defaulted on these guarantee obligations.

It should be noted that GMH has suggested that it may ask the Council to transfer different parcels of the Council’s Land and the salvage yard to different subsidiaries to be set up later by GMH, in order that a separate subsidiary would hold the land intended for the residential element of their development, the affordable housing element, the hotel element, the retail element, etc. This is permitted under the CLSA, and is not uncommon where developers wish to have different land uses held by different entities, but would not alter the overall extent of land which the Council will transfer or the total amount of monies which the Council receives for that land at completion of the transfer(s). Even in these circumstances, the guarantees provided by GMH and Harborough under the CLSA and Overage Deed (as discussed above) would continue to cover these additional subsidiaries in relation to the obligations in those documents which still remained to be performed

Whether the complex report tabled for the Cabinet amounts to the financial appraisal Cllr Filson thought essential  remains to be seen. Unfortunately Brent Council has restricted documentation that may have revealed more detail of the financial arrangements. LINK

Protest Against Racist Attacks - Wednesday Jan 11th - Hammersmith

Click on image to enlarge

What do you know about 'Investing 4 Brent'?

It sounds like a credit union but it is in fact a ‘Wholly Owned Investment Company’ (WOC) approved by Brent Cabinet at its November meeting and which had its first meeting just before Christmas.

The Cabinet appointed Cllr George Crane (a former member of the Executive and lead for Regeneration and Major Projects), Phil Porter (Strategic Director of Wellbeing) and Peter Gadson ( Director of Policy, Partnerships and Performance) as directors and former Chief Executive of Ealing Council, Martin Smith, as Chair.

The Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee are due to discuss the Council’s Capital Programme and Investment Programme on January 10^th.  This includes an accout  of the progress of various capital programmes across Brent, including major developemnts and the school expansion prgramme,  and ‘Investing 4 Brent’ is mentioned in the umbrella report only in passing.  However the Cabinet report on the Wholly Owned Investment Company LINK is included in the subsidiary documents and members may think it merits some scrutiny and discussion as a new departure for Brent Council which raises potential issues of democratic accountability beyond Cabinet oversight.

The Report summarises the Council’s intention:

The proposal is for Brent Council to form a Company under its General Fund powers, which will be 100% owned by the Council. Its initial principal aim will be to assist in the delivery of the Council’s ambitious regeneration plans and housing development objectives, but it is envisaged that this aim will be developed over time. 


The rationale for using a WOC, as opposed to developing direct through the General Fund, includes:
.                           Isolation of some financial risks, which would be borne in the first instance by the Company rather than the Council; 

.                          More focused management of these complex risks, such as cash flow, tax, land development and market appraisals, many of which are not typical of most council services; 

.                          Specifically within the initial focus on housing, absolute clarity that any housing properties delivered will not be council HRA properties and thus will not impact on the HRA borrowing cap. Right to Buy (RTB) does not apply to homes developed through a WOC, as the Company forms a distinct legal entity from the Council. 

.                          Strong and onerous personal obligations placed on the Directors of the company, through the Companies Act, to ensure that the activity receives the appropriate management focus; 

.                           Flexibility to act more commercially and at greater speed than the council can, which is essential in acquiring property and striking development deals and hence emphasises why governance and control are so important; and 

.                          Flexibility to develop the company, once established, into another structure, if so required, allowing for example the development of other companies within the Brent umbrella or sharing of the equity in the company with another partner if that becomes desirable. 

It is not intended that the WOC would have a high profile identity separate from the Council, and that, operationally, it would be a “light” organisation with many activities, particularly development, undertaken via consultancy support, contracts and management agreements or via secondment of Council staff. It is expected that by setting up and running the Company in this way the impact on staffing capacity would be low but equally would improve efficiency and maintain employment whilst providing a motivating opportunity for staff to develop new skills. Some direct appointments might be necessary in relation to, for example, management of core functions such as Board papers, audit, insurance, accounting and tax. 


The conclusion of this report is that the WOC has significant potential to support the delivery of housing, infrastructure and regeneration strategies directly (i.e. through site development) and indirectly (providing the catalyst for further private sector investment or maintaining the momentum of change). For example, the potential for the Council to be able to directly deliver housing on land that it owns is of clear benefit to the wider regeneration of Brent as it will provide an alternative route to private sector delivery which has been constrained by prevailing economic conditions. 

Brent Council is currently in the process of bringing the Brent Housing Partnership back ‘in house’ and although a totally different enterprise ‘Investing 4 Brent’ appears to be a form of out-sourcing with its own risks attached.  6.20 indicates that any financial shortfall could be made up by raising rents or selling off property:

.        6.13.  Initial modelling has presented a sustainable business plan for the company provided that a number of key targets are met, the key ones being:
.        Purchasing a portfolio of properties that generates sufficient income from letting to tenants at sub market rents to cover the costs of operating the company and interest on debt owed to Brent 

.        Properties are managed in such a way as the costs of operation are optimised and the revenues lost through void and bad debts are minimised 

.        6.14.  The premise of this company is that it has been established to provide quality housing options at sub market rents. Key to the sustainability of this company is its ability to operational surpluses. However, the ability to make significant surpluses is restricted through sub market rental income. Section 6 of the business plan gives more detail on the critical and other variables that the directors of the company will need to manage to ensure a sustainable, successful and profitable company. 

.        6.15.  Providing that these key targets are met, the financial profile of the company is that it becomes profitable during the second year, and retains surpluses from which to operate until end of the 30 year business plan period. 

.        6.16.  It should also be noted that incorporation of a company exposes the operation to liability for corporation tax and VAT. Payment of these taxes has been included in the financial modelling exercise. 

.        6.17.  Given the target variables as defined above, the company will require a cash flow / working capital facility of up to £1m during the first 4 years of operation. The need for a working capital facility arises from the time it takes from the acquisition of the property to first let. The financial profile for the company is for the company to make a loss in the first year of operation, turn from profit to loss during the second year and to make accrued profits from year 4 onwards. 

.        6.18.  For the avoidance of doubt, this is a loss within the company. As it forms part of the council’s overall group it is not a loss to the council; indeed, the company will be a part of the council’s plans to reduce its overall costs in managing homelessness. By way of analogy, describing the company as making a loss in its early operation is the same as describing any operational budget as a ‘loss’ which would be meaningless for practical purposes. However, the early loss in the company has a specific meaning within the Companies Act, which is why it is necessary to demonstrate that the company will over time be profitable. 

.        6.19.  From year 4 onwards the company is self-sustaining, with losses made in later years being offset by further profits made in the earlier years. This is detailed in the appended company business case. 
Meeting
.        6.20.  There are risks of setting up a company, the primary one being that due to unforeseen market changes it may become insolvent. This risk should be mitigated by suitable monitoring arrangements as set out above. It is important that the company maintain the flexibility to set rents and if necessary dispose of properties to meet any shortfalls. The company should not be authorised to borrow or incur long-term liabilities without prior Council approval. 

.        6.21.  To support the viability of the company and protect the interests of the company a commercial arm will operate alongside the PRS affordable housing. This commercial element will permit greater opportunity to deliver sub market and commercial housing to create a strong and sustainable business and offer accessible housing products to key workers amongst others.