Duffy condemns 'folly' of failed Kingdom littering contract

In an email to fellow councillors, Cllr John Duffy, has raised key issues about the Kingdom littering contract, LINK which he expects to be officially deemed a failure by officers:

I am sure you are aware about the way the Issuing of the £80 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) contracts was given to a company by "word of mouth" tendering. I am sure you remember my objections at the time because the contract showed complete disregard to Equal opportunities, VFM [Value for money] and the terms and conditions of excising agreed staff /posts. The officers also failed to make any attempt to negotiate and allowed to company to collect £46 for every FPN issued by them whether they were paid or not. 

It's clear now a March report to cabinet will say the contract has not been successful and costs too much and will try and cancel the contract. Unfortunately the contract will have cost us over £100k, which could have been spend on other enforcement activities or environmental improvement. It seems crazy to me that when Brent is now identified as the sixth worst Local Authority for fly tipping in the country. Which is an all time low. So Instead of dealing with fly tipping we gave this private contract over £202K (Brent received £27K) to issue 4000 PFN to fag -butt litter outside tube stations and Bus stops. This contract was the lead members folly (which we will all have to pay for ) and was against my advice and costings at the time. 

I asked the CEO to carry out an independent investigation, but she has refused. However she did release information to me about income from the contract. The information shows we have paid £11k for 160 tickets that were written off by the council because of reasons like they were issued to the incorrect address or incorrect person. The 160 includes 25 that were written of because the person had Mental Health Issues.  

Firstly let me thank the council officer who did not send these 25 cases for prosecution (presumably after seeing the CCTV) and saved Brent council the shame of taking people who have Mental Health issues to court. However in our efforts to maximise the profits for the private company , we still paid them £46 for every ticket issued including the residents with Mental Health Issues.

In my opinion this payment was not only morally wrong is was also illegal. In the report that was sent to both the Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee in part 4.10 of the report under responsibilities to be undertaken by the contractor , they were not to issue them to persons under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering from mental health issues.

I am asking the CEO and head of legal to confirm

(1) Is the payment to the contractor legal, if so why.

(2) if not what steps are they taking to redeem the money. 

(3) What penalty will the contractor pay for issuing tickets to persons with mental health issues.

I am also concerned many more FPNs were have been given to persons with Mental health issues , but were paid by them. I believe we should review all the CCTV evidence ( whether they paid or not) as the % of mental health cases in the non payers is approx. 15%,. If that is reflected in paid tickets it could be as high as 500 tickets which were wrongly issued.

I hope the CEO and Legal officer will treat this issue with the importance it deserves. I believe the CEO should get back to all council members ensuring them the issuing of FPN to persons  with Mental Health Issues has stopped.

Wembley residents rise up against Spurs plans for increased matches and capacity

Traffic flow: Red-not good, Yellow-slow, Green-OK (16.51 Feb 21st)

After a poorly attended and advertised consultation event at Challkhill Community Centre earlier this month, attended by Tottenham Hotspur and the Football Association, it appeared that there would be little opposition to plans to increased the number of major and full capacity events at the Stadium during Spurs' tenure:

 As approved, [planning] condition 3 stated that for two years following completion of the stadium, subject to the completion of specific improvement works to Wembley Park Station and construction of roads known as Estate Access Corridor and Stadium Access Corridor, the number of major sporting events held at the stadium in any one year was restricted to no more than 22 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation), and the number of major non-sporting events to 15. After this, additional events over and above this were permitted subject to the number of spectators being limited to the capacity of the lower and middle tiers of the stadium. 

The proposal would allow for up to an additional 31 major sporting Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) events between 1 August 2017 and 31 July 2018. A major event (which may or may not include THFC) would be considered to be an event in the stadium bowl with a capacity in excess of 10,000 people

A glance at the consultation page LINK now shows that opposition is building. Most of the objections centre on the impact on the quality of life of nearby residents of increased number of events and capacity in terms of traffic density and pollution, crowded buses, overground and tube lines - basically a curtailment of residents' freedom to move easily around their own area. A particular concern is congestion between Forty Lane/Wembley Park, Wembley Hill Road and Wembley High Road where traffic often grinds to a halt.   Other concerns are over littering and the alleged anti-social behaviour of Spurs fans.  In answer to the suggestion that 'you have chosen to live near a major international stadium - it goes with the territory' residents respond that they acknowledge the contribution the stadium makes to the vitality of the area, a reasonable amount of disruption is to be expected but that these proposals go too far and breach undertakings previously given.

I sense that there are wider concerns underpinning some of the objections. Residents feel out of control of the development of their locality and, moreover, that when they do express a view they are ignored. Residents are pitted against an alliance of the Football Association, anxious to maximise income to pay off the costs of the new Wembley Stadium, Spurs keen to finance their new stadium, US owned Quintain  wanting to maximise profit from what increasingly looks like speculative and unfettered development and Brent Council wanting to maximise income to make up for the local government cuts imposed by central government.

Brent Council fails to champion the needs and interests of local residents and instead is an ally of the football and developer 'big boys'.  This was not helped recently when Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, and Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, took part in Quintain's public relations blitz over the Tivi private rent build at Wembley Park  - ignoring the fact that the apartments are in no way affordable to local people.


How can the Council make balanced decisions on behalf of residents if they are firmly in the arms of Spurs, the FA and Quintain? How can Sadiq Khan make balanced decisions using his call-in powers over major developments?

I publish below just one of the contributions to the consultation site. Consultation closes on March 2nd 2017.

-->

1. There is already substantial disruption to the area surrounding Wembley Stadium caused by the large numbers of people that descend on the area, especially during football matches. It stands to reason that almost doubling the number of events would result in a substantial INCREASE in disruption to the immediate and surrounding areas.

2. When football events are held at Wembley Stadium, fans do not respect the area, local shopkeepers or residents, leaving the area considerably dirty with excessive littering that isn't cleared up for several days following any event.

3. Traffic disruption caused by events is already difficult to bear, both in the immediate Stadium area and in adjacent areas such as Kingsbury, Blackbird Hill, A406, etc. The area and the existing road transport infrastructure just cannot cope with more events. Brent Council has failed to improve this - there's no money left.

4. Public transport is not usable on match days. Trains are packed (i.e. passengers cannot get on trains until matches have started) and fans are often drunk or behave badly (personally witnessed a drunk fan urinating on a Jubilee line platform). Regular users of public transport are shut out by hoards of fans who don't really show any consideration for local residents using public transport regularly. Over 50% of visitors to Wembley Stadium events (higher for football events) use LUL and Mainline Rail services - the existing infrastructure can barely cope on non-event days, let alone on event days.

5. The report states that THFC fans are "generally well behaved with no history of regular fan related violence at home or away over the past 10 years in domestic and European competition." This is simply INCORRECT. See here: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/429227/football-hooligan-racism-abuse-chelsea-tottenham-wembley-tube-station-capital-one-cup
I do not wish to have more events that create opportunities for further bad behaviour, especially for fans that have no affinity for Wembley or consider this their "home" base.

6. Air quality - all air quality monitoring locations are some distance away from the stadium, presumably to skew the results and provide a favourable outcome for THFC. It would be better if some monitoring sites were closer to the stadium.

7. Noise pollution - I simply disagree with the assessment that because the proposed changes are only for a year or so, the increase in overall noise pollution should be borne by residents. This is just silly. More events = more noise. There's no justification for that. The absence of mitigates beyond "continued monitoring" is equivalent to kicking the can down the road when nobody will pay attention. Locals are not stupid so show greater consideration please.

8. The assessment of the effects of the proposed changes (Socio-economics: moderate beneficial; Transport: minor adverse; Air Quality: Not significant; Noise: negligible) and the judgement of their cumulative effects as "no change" is purely subjective. There is simply no empirical evidence carried out by INDEPENDENT assessors to verify these. If you are paying the so-called experts (for the avoidance of doubt, Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners is acting on behalf of the applicant), of course they'll give you the answer you want! Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

Furthermore, the additional creation of c.31k jobs is highly speculative and there is no guarantee that these would be filled by local residents or if there's any local benefit whatsoever. Many of the companies used to provide catering and stewarding services bring in staff from other areas of London/the UK so there's NO BENEFIT whatsoever to the local economy.

9. The benefits of the proposed changes do not pass onto local residents. c.67% of the anticipated additional expenditure would be on travel and transport in getting to/from the stadium. Only 1/3 of the anticipated benefits would likely accrue to the local area, of which Wembley Stadium would stand to gain a large share. I'd be interested to learn more about how the £43.5m and £14.5m figures area arrived at and the assumptions behind them which, interestingly, are nowhere to be found in the report(s) made available.

10. Brent Council should conduct its own in-depth report to verify each and every claim made by the applicant. This should be made available to all Brent residents to read and then make their own minds up.

I would also highly recommend holding a public meeting for residents to ask questions of the applicant and the Council before a decision is made.

Then of course there is the expectaion that Chelsea will follow Tottenham at Wembley - the precedent will have been set.

Jenny Jones condemns inflammatory 'vile rhetoric' of referendum campaigns

I thought it worth publishing in full the speech made by Green Party peer, Jenny Jones, on the EU Withdrawal Bill, in the House of Lords:

 
My Lords, one of the deep delights for me in your Lordships’ House is the fact that we have such deep divides in opinion and yet we can still stay polite. That was the position that I found myself in during the referendum campaign, when I was campaigning to leave the EU. I found myself in some unsavoury company at times, with some people with whom I share not a single view, apart from the fact that the UK would be better off outside the EU.

I believe passionately that we have made the right decision, but at the same time we have to be absolutely sure that we go about it in the right way. The Bill that the Government have presented to us is simply inadequate. Had there been a decent White Paper with some detail about the things that many of us care about, I would have felt calmer about voting for the Bill as it exists. However, the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations with a blank sheet of paper. Where are the underlying principles? There are underlying principles in the EU, but where are the underlying principles that we will maintain during negotiations, or are there to be no principles at all?

The Green Party is particularly concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and the countryside to the social protections that we see as normal in society nowadays. The Government could use a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation to do all sorts of things that the majority of people who voted leave would not want to happen. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for bypassing proper parliamentary procedure and scrutiny. The Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

As somebody who has advocated leaving the EU ever since we joined as a result of the 1975 European Communities membership referendum, I resent people suggesting that I am out to wreck the Bill by seeking to amend it—someone even said that it would be “traitorous”. That is an unpleasant thing to say about people who are trying to improve things. As for threats from the other place to replace the House of Lords with a different sort of Chamber or abolish it altogether, for me, that would be a welcome bonus. I believe that it is time for us to be abolished and replaced by a democratically elected Chamber. For me, therefore, that is no threat at all. However, it is bullying. 

What do we do with bullies? We stand up to them.

I will try to amend this Bill. I have put down five amendments that I feel would definitely improve the Bill and I will support amendments from other Members of your Lordships’ House. It is our job to advise and to reform and improve the sometimes very poor legislation that comes from the other place. My five amendments cover the following areas: transitional arrangements; legal enforcement; environmental regulators; access to justice; and employment and equality protections. These are self-evident. They will ask for detailed plans, lots of preparation and proper funding, which I know this Government have a huge problem with.

I am going to keep my remarks brief because some of what I would like to say is probably best left unsaid. However, before finishing, I would like to add that I also commend the amendment from a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will protect the residence rights of EU citizens legally resident in the UK on the day of the referendum— 23 June 2016. It is a precautionary but self-evident amendment and it would be cruel not to include it. I cannot see why the Government would have any objections to it being in the Bill.

Finally, although the outcome of last year’s vote was what I wanted, I have not taken a moment’s pleasure from it in the intervening time, partly because of the way in which the campaigns on both sides were conducted and partly because of the conduct since. There has been so much hatred and vile rhetoric, which has inflamed people. I am sure that many of us here have had abuse. That is a normal part of any progressive politician’s inbox but it has now reached levels that are just incredible.

We should take pleasure in issues such as immigration, because it is good for our country: it is good for the economy and it is good for our culture. I also believe that if you accept free trade, then why not accept the free movement of people? When we look at the Bill and vote on it next week, I hope that the Government will understand that we must not lower our standards. Whether it is on food, social protection or protecting our countryside, we must not go down the route of making things worse. In a sense, society is already worse because of the referendum and the Government must do everything in their power to heal as much as possible.

Jenny Jones: May wrong to use Brexit to by-pass proper Parliamentary scrutiny

Green Party peer Jenny Jones has come out fighting today against claims that she is out to 'wereck' the Brexit Bill.

She said:

As someone who has advocated leaving the EU for over two decades, I resent people saying I am out to ‘wreck’ the Brexit bill by seeking to amend it Many of us have huge concerns that we will lose environmental and social protections because of the way the Prime Minister is approaching these negotiations.

I am concerned that the Cabinet will attempt to dump protections for everything from wildlife and countryside to workers rights and climate change, by using a combination of exit negotiations and secondary legislation. It is wrong to use the referendum result as cover for by-passing proper Parliamentary scrutiny and the Lords has the job of ensuring that a democratic process is followed throughout the different stages of the negotiations.

 As for abolishing the Lords and replacing it with a democratically elected second chamber, that would be a welcome bonus.

Valentines for the NHS and Charing Cross Hopsital

There were smiling faces on Valentine’s Day, as Save Our Hospitals campaigners presented a huge hand-made card with heart-shaped messages from enthusiastic members of the public to NHS staff at Charing Cross. Messages expressed ‘LOVE’ for Charing Cross Hospital and for the NHS.

Campaigners used the event to publicise the coming mass national demonstration for the NHS to be held in London on March 4th (see http://www.ournhs.info/ ).

Where was “The Beggars Roost”? – a Wembley mystery

Many thanks to Philip Grant for this fascinating guest blog. My late older brother, David, had a lifelong passion for motorbikes that probably started with the 'Wembley Lions.

 

You were probably living in Wembley during the Second World War, more than seventy years ago, or have talked to someone who was, if you can answer this question. But even if neither applies to you, you may still be interested to know why I am asking.

I deal with email local history enquiries on behalf of Wembley History Society, and they sometimes set some fascinating puzzles. One arrived recently from a lady in the United States. She was looking around a Goodwill store (charity shop), and saw a very attractive coat of arms, hand-painted on a wooden plaque. She bought it, took it home, and then began to wonder what it was, and the story behind it.

The name “Wembley” was almost certainly a place, and she found out that the letters “ARP” stood for Air Raid Precautions, in Britain during the Second World War. By searching online, she discovered that there was someone she could contact who might know more about the history of Wembley at that time, so she sent me a photo of her plaque.

A.R.P. Post 12 Plaque, from Cheryl Hutton

 I have no doubt that this home-made coat of arms came from “our” Wembley, as the lion in the top right quarter is copied from the badge of the “Wembley Lions” motorcycle speedway team. They were based at Wembley Stadium, and were hugely popular during the 1930’s, when they were national champions several times. 
 

The blue and yellow quarter below it shows an air raid warden’s helmet, gas mask and rattle, so there can be little doubt that the plaque was first made for, and probably displayed at, ARP Post 12, in Sector 8 / 9 of the Borough of Wembley. But where was this, and why did the wardens call their base ‘the Beggars Roost”? Is the chicken (or “rooster”) a clue, and who is the beggar above it on the plaque? I don’t know, and would certainly welcome any information that readers, or anyone they can forward this article to who might be able to help, could provide.

Eighty years ago the Borough of Wembley was a separate local government area, with a population of just over 100,000 people. Even before the war, the local Council was making A.R.P plans, and starting to build public air raid shelters, in response to the threat from Germany. After war broke out, a full-scale air raid wardens service was mobilised, which at its height had 2,500 wardens, 95% of them unpaid volunteers. 

I know, from an elderly neighbour (the son of a warden), that the A.R.P. post for our 1930's-built estate was in the requisitioned garage of a local bungalow. His father was one of the first on the scene when a German "parachute mine" hit a row of shops in Kingsbury Road one night in September 1940, killing two mothers, a baby boy and a seven year old girl, in the flats above. This is an official "war damage" photo of the scene, taken the following day, which shows the sort of event that the wardens had to deal with (thankfully, not too often!).

Bombed shops and flats in Kingsbury Road, 1940

As well as the A.R.P. wardens, first aid and rescue teams were also organised. After the bombing raids started in earnest, in August 1940, nearly all civilians had to undertake "fire watching" duties (around 7,500 of the c. 9,000 bombs which fell in the Wembley area between 1940 and 1945 were incendiaries), so around 25,000 Wembley people in total were engaged in some form of Civil Defence work during the war. The Borough lost 149 civilians killed in air raids, including several A.R.P. wardens, with over 400 more seriously injured.

The “Beggars Roost” plaque, which somehow found its way to the U.S.A. after the war, is a reminder that the bombing of civilians, horrible as it is, is not just something that happens in far-away places like Syria or Yemen. It happened in Wembley as well, and the volunteer men and women of A.R.P. Post 12, and others like it, did their best to protect their neighbours from such atrocities. I hope that, perhaps with your help, I can find out more about them.

Philip Grant.

Defend Sen Campaign - Public Meeting Friday 24th February

We would like to invite you all to public meeting organised by DEFENSENCAMPAIGN and against trade union victimisation of Sen, a life long committed maths teacher and a trade union activist. This is not the first time this has happened. The public meeting follows the second strike action taken by his branch in protest at his continued suspension. The platform also includes Grunwick40 and hopes to connect the past with the present. Sen led a number of campaigns and strikes in the College situated near what used to be the site of Grunwick.

Sen was suspended for representing two ex- colleague support staff members sacked by the College at an employment tribunal, who could not afford to hire costly barristers. The allegation is that he took unauthorised leave. His union believes that this was a pretext to get rid of him. One of the sacked member is of Afro Caribbean origin and the other member he was representing suffers from five set of disabilities. The College had never refused him unpaid leave before but did so this time.

Sen led a very suscessful campaign resulting in stopping a merger taking place between City of Westminster College and his College in 2013, the only College to have fought of a merger trough joint union action. Following his suspension on the 10 October 2016, the two College again took a decision to merge.  He remains suspended and decision with regards to his continued employment will come out on the 24 February or soon thereafter. Your intervention through appearance at the Public meeting or public support may have a significant impact on the decision.

Even whilst suspended, he has satisfactorily concluded a number of cases involving his members to their satisfaction.

Cheers
DEFENDSENCAMPAIGN

Disabled people asked to contact Brent Advocacy Concerns over cuts in care packages

Brent Advocacy Concerns, one of several Brent voluntary organisations facing an uncertain future following the decision of NHS Estates to charge market rents to voluntary organisations at their Willesden Centre PFI property, are asking disabled people to get in touch over the impact of a review of care packages:

-->

On January 16^th, Brent Council made a decision that will mean that some disabled individuals living in the borough will be facing cuts to their social care packages.

The council has decided to reassess those people who were receiving the Independent Living Fund (ILF) from the Government before the scheme was closed. This is with the aim of reducing either care costs or the hours of support received for some of the disabled people in Brent who receive this support.   Brent Council have said:

“The Council is confident that the wellbeing of all 21 service users affected can and will be maintained, and that they will continue to be able to access the community as well as receive all of the personal care and support they require.”

Brent Advocacy Concerns is keen to know whether Brent Council have or is going to review people’s care package and what the actual or expected outcome will be and the impact it will have upon their wellbeing and engagement in the community as a result of any cuts to their care packages.    We would like to hear from disabled people with the goal of highlighting the impact that the social care cuts is having upon residents living in Brent.

Brent Advocacy Concerns is a member of Inclusion London and has supported their campaign work which led to the Government having to do a U-turn on ILF funding.   The Government has allocated four years of ILF funding (2016-2020) for Brent ILF recipients – we need to make sure the continued funding for ILF is used to maintain disabled individuals social care packages. 

We would like to hear from you.  Please contact us on 020 8459 1493 (voicemail messages will be responded to)

Email  bacadvocacy@outlook.com   or info@brentac.org   

With regards

John Healy, Chair

Brent Advocacy Concerns. 

Brent Advocacy Concerns, Willesden Centre for Health and Care, Robson Avenue, London