Guesy post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
I thought that I’d finished writing about the Brent Cabinet meeting on
28 May, the “decision” to allow adverts to cover the
heritage tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park for at least another four years, and the cover-up of how the Council Leader
failed to deal appropriately with the point of order which I raised. Then, this public question to Cllr. Muhammed Butt for the 8 July Full
Council meeting was brought to my attention:
Extract from the 8 July agenda papers, published on the Council’s website.
I had no idea who the questioner was, but the publicity (on “Wembley Matters”?) about
the award of the new Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease had obviously attracted his attention. My efforts had been directed at
trying to persuade Cabinet members that it was worth accepting a slightly lower
amount of advertising revenue, in order to put the tile murals in the subway
back on public display. His question
asked what the money raised would be spent on.
At the meeting on 28 May, Cllr. Butt had spoken about the money received
from advertising on the Bobby Moore Bridge helping to 'provide residents
with the services they depend on.' This was, presumably, his justification
for accepting the Officer recommendation to award the new lease under Option B,
because it ‘provided greater financial benefits’ (= more money).
Extract from the Officer Report on the advertising lease to the 28 May
Cabinet meeting.
Cllr. Butt’s response to the Full Council public question contains a
slightly different answer. Instead of services that residents depend on, he
says that the money raised will be used ‘to inform residents about a
wide range of council services and deliver communications campaigns.’ There
is a difference between providing much needed services and simply
telling residents about them!
Cllr. Butt refers in his response to informing residents about campaigns
on ‘tackling fly-tipping’, ‘health inequalities’ and ‘community safety’. Here
are some examples of how the Council does that:
Fly-tipping article from the Spring 2024 “Your
Brent” magazine.
Double page spread health article from the Spring 2024 “Your Brent”
magazine.
Brent Council press release on a community safety subject.
You will note that these are all positive stories about Brent’s (Labour)
Council, which all feature photographs of smiling Brent (Labour) Cabinet
members. As well as ‘inform[ing] residents about a wide range of council
services,’ they are also promoting the Council’s majority political party, and
particularly its Cabinet. Every (then) member of Brent’s Cabinet is pictured at
least once in the Spring 2024 edition of the “Your Brent” magazine, with the
Leader appearing five times and Cllr. Krupa Sheth topping the list with eight
photos!
The Council has not been allowed to feature local politicians in its
publicity material during the General Election “purdah” period, but on Monday 8
July (the same day that Full Council would be considering a Lib Dem motion on
fly-tipping), Brent Communications was back in action, putting out a press
release about a new Council campaign, with a photograph featuring … (you’ve
guessed the answer!):
So, when Cllr. Butt said on 28 May that the recommendation to award the
new lease under Option B had been agreed (even though no Cabinet members raised
their hands or spoke their agreement – staying silent is said to be showing
unanimous support for what the Leader says!), he and (allegedly) his Cabinet
were deciding to put more money into the funds used for promoting themselves
and their local Party!
Cllr Butt, at least, must have known that is where the money would go,
as his top “cross-cutting” area of responsibility (as the latest Cabinet Portfolios information
shows) is ‘Communications’. That might
explain why he ignored my reasonable request to allow
his Cabinet the chance to vote for Option A, which would have provided a slightly lower annual rental figure (but
still a minimum guaranteed figure of more that £90,000 a year).
I have pointed out in earlier articles that the Officer Report to the 28
May Cabinet meeting was heavily biased in favour of Option B. Although that
Report was signed-off by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing &
Resident Services, such reports are actually prepared by one or more of the
“Contact Officers” shown under the Report heading:
In this case, the main author of the Report appears to have been Brent’s
Head of Communications! If, as it appears from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s response
to the question from a member of the public, the rental income from the Bobby
Moore Bridge advertising lease was going straight into the Council’s
Communications budget, then the Head of Communications had a clear conflict of
interests. He would find it difficult to be (and I’m pretty sure he was not)
impartial in making the recommendation in that Report, because Option B would
provide more funding for his own department.
There was no mention of where the money would go to, or the conflict of
interests, in the Report. Not only was the “decision” to allow the Bobby Moore
Bridge tile murals to remain covered with advertising equipment for another
four years a bad decision, badly made because the case for Option A was not
properly considered (if at all), and badly handled by the Council Leader at the
28 May Cabinet meeting, it was another example of the “dodgy” way in which allowing Quintain
to advertise on the Bobby Moore Bridge has been
dealt with ever since 2013.
Philip Grant.
