Details of new uplifted Brent councillor allowances for 2016-17

Perhaps it is not a great  public relations strategy to be discussing a 1% increase in councillor allowances at the same Full Council Meeting which will be agreeing a budget that cuts services, but that is what will happen on February 22nd LINK

Apart from the uplift there are other changes due to the proposed revised Scrutiny arrangements (see below). It is also proposed that councillors will be able to claim travelling and subsistence allowances for conferences they attend outside of the borough. This will be set at the same level as council officers.

In a move that might not sweeten relationships between the two Conservative Groups on the Council it is proposed to remove the  deputy leader allowance for the Conservative Group (led by Cllr John Warren) from Cllr Carol Shaw. Instead £9,000 will go to the leader of the Brent Conservative Group, Cllr Suresh Kansagra.

The report reminds councillors of the principle behind the allowance scheme:

 Members are reminded that the 2014 Report advocates the setting of allowances at a level that enables people to undertake the role of councillor while not acting as an incentive to do so. It is equally important, as acknowledged, that there should not be a financial disincentive. 
It is also worth mentioning that in 2014 Members allowances were set at a reduced, or much reduced, level than the amount recommended by the independent panel. The difficulty in increasing allowances for Members given the current financial austerity, was recognised by the independent panel

These are the proposed new allowances for 2016-17:

BASIC, SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CO-OPTED MEMBER ALLOWANCES WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2016

Basic Allowance

Payable to all councillors = £10,100

Special Responsibility Allowances
(No more than one allowance per member)  This is in addition to the Basic Allowance.

1. Leader of the Council = £39,354


2. Deputy Leader of the Council = £28,681


3. Other Cabinet Members (x6) = £18,898


4. Chair of the Scrutiny Committee = £14,140 (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016)


5. Vice-Chair of the Scrutiny Committee = £5,050 (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016)


6. Chair of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £14,140


7. Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £14,140

8. Vice-Chair of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £5,050


9. Vice-Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Community and Well- being Scrutiny Committee (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £5,050


10. Members of the Scrutiny Committee (x6) (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016) = £3,202


11. Members of the Scrutiny Committees (x12) (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £3,202


12. Chair of the Planning Committee = £14,140

13. Members of the Planning Committee (x6) = £3,234


14. Chair of the Standards Committee = £2,155


15. Co-Chair of the Youth Parliament = £2,155


16. Chair of the Pension Fund Sub-Committee = £2,155


17. Chairs of the Service User Consultative Forums (x5) = £2,155


18. Chairs of the Brent Connects Area Consultative Forums (x5) = £4,873


19. Members of the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Committee (x15) = £2,155

20. Member of the Adoption and Permanency Panel = £3,234


21. Member of the Fostering Panel = £3,234


22. Leader of the Principal Opposition Group* = £12,913

23. Other Group Leader(s) = £9,000


24. Group Whip for the majority group with over 50% of councillors = £5,583


25. Deputy Whips for the majority group (x2) = £2,155


26. Mayor = £9,090


27. Deputy Mayor = £7,070 

*For the purposes of this Scheme this is the second largest group of the Council. If there are two or more opposition groups of the same size, it is such group as the Council shall decide.

Co-opted Member Allowances

1. Chair of the Audit Committee (non-voting) = £423


2. Independent member(s) of the Standards Committee (non-voting) = £423


3. Education voting co-opted members of the Scrutiny Committee (x4) (under current scrutiny arrangements until 18 May 2016) = £224


4. Education voting co-opted members of the Community and Well-being Scrutiny Committee (x4) (under new scrutiny arrangements from 19 May 2016) = £224

The introduction of two Scrutiny Committees is the main source of the increase in spending on allowances.  The overall budget cannot be predicted because it is not possible to forecast claims under the new conference expenses system and because only one special allowance can be paid even if a councillor takes on several roles.  The allocation of these roles will not be known until after the AGM.

The allocation of roles has been controversial in the past with accusations of unfairness to councillors with an independent mindset and favouritism towards the compliant. The increase in the number of potential roles may satisfy more of the 56 strong Labour Group.

With the leadership of the Labour Group (and therefore the Council)  to be decided at the AGM in May things could become quite interesting.

Brent Council's Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme: Scrutiny - What Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The purpose of the committee, from Brent Council’s website.

 

In a guest post last May, I set out the efforts I’d made to get a proper explanation from the Council about why 152 of the 250 homes at the Council’s housing development on the former Copland School site in Wembley would be built for a “developer partner” to sell at a profit. And why only 37 of the remaining 98 homes (less than 15% of the site total) would be for “genuinely affordable” rent to Council tenants (with the other 61 being for shared ownership). 

 

I asked ‘Where is the Scrutiny?’ Proper scrutiny was needed, because all that Cabinet members and Officers would tell me was that it would not be viable to offer more affordable homes at Cecil Avenue. That answer did not appear to make sense! 

 

Illustration from Brent’s April 2021 Wembley Housing Zone “Soft Market Testing” exercise.

 

The Council already owned the site (so none of the high land costs they use to justify the “infill” schemes on existing Council estates). They already had millions in funding from the GLA for their “Wembley Housing Zone”, as well as £5.5m extra for this scheme. And they could borrow money for the construction from the Public Works Loans Board at historically low interest rates.

 

Of course, the Council would not let me (or any other citizen of the borough) see their “Viability” report, not even under the Freedom of Information Act, because it was “confidential”. But councillors on a Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to see it, and question the relevant Cabinet members and Council Officers about the figures; and about why Brent could not offer more affordable homes on this development for the families in housing need that they claim to be so keen to build “New Council Homes” for!

 

My old parody Brent publicity photo for its Cecil Avenue Council Housing scheme.

 

I’d been trying since a guest blog in January 2022 (“It looks bad. It looks wrong!”) to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to take a close look at the Cecil Avenue project. And I did manage to include this as part of in a deputation to the 9 March meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee about the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

It took two months for the Council to provide a written (partial) reply to my deputation, by which time there had been local elections, and a new committee with a new Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely. I wrote to her on 12 June, recommending that she include “Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme” on her committee’s agenda for 19 July. I explained why, and said: 

 

‘Senior Council Officers and the Lead Member(s) involved do need to be put on the spot, to explain how they arrived at this apparent "giveaway" of much needed genuinely affordable Council homes, and if they can't give a satisfactory explanation, to come up with something better.’

 

Extract from minutes of the 9 March 2022 meeting of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

 

I received no reply, but after the minutes of the 9 March meeting had been published with the agenda for the committee’s 19 July meeting, I wrote to Cllr. Conneely again. I pointed out that the written response to my deputation totally ignored my points on Cecil Avenue. The claims made at the 9 March meeting about moving forward on the Poverty Commission recommendations, and ‘all homes being ring-fenced as being at affordable levels of rent’ were also false. The 2020 Poverty Commission had recommended Social Rent level, and no New Council Homes were yet being built for Social Rent!

 

The Social Rent recommendation from the Brent Poverty Commission Report.

 

On 18 July, Rita Conneely replied to me, saying: ‘Many thanks for your follow up on this. I am looking into this & seeking relevant additional information for the committee & its members.’ She referred to this, under “Matters Arising”, when those minutes were considered at the 19 July meeting, and indicated that this would be dealt with when the committee met in September. 

 

I was looking out for the agenda for the 6 September meeting, and when it was published there was no mention of the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme on it. Worse than that, this is what the minutes of the 19 July meeting showed:

 

Extract from the minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 19 July.

 

“None”! I wrote to Cllr. Conneely on 30 August, including a transcript of what she had said at the 19 July meeting (from the webcast, beginning at 3.35 minutes into the recording):

 

‘And then we’re going to do “Matters Arising”. After our paper (?), so we have received …. Prior to this meeting we received a deputation from one of our residents, Mr Philip Grant, in regards to a presentation which was made to this committee in our previous municipal year, on the Poverty Commission. We’ve received some further information from our, from the Housing Department, in regards to that which the committee will be looking at in future, and we’ll be commenting on any of our further recommendations at our September meeting.’

 

In my email I asked that the minutes should be corrected, and also wrote:

 

‘An opportunity to put the decision makers "on the spot" at the 19 July meeting was missed, but I was led to believe that this would be done at your September meeting. Please let me know how, and where on the agenda, you will be doing that, so that I can request to speak on that item, if appropriate.’

 

I heard nothing back from the Chair of the committee, but did receive a promise from its Governance Officer (who my email had been copied to) that the minutes would be corrected. The day before the 6 September meeting, the agenda was republished. There was still no mention on it of the Cecil Avenue housing scheme, but revised minutes showed:

 

Extract from the revised minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s 19 July meeting.

 

So what did happen on 6 September about the outstanding matters from my 9 March deputation, and especially the answers to the points I’d raised about the lack of genuinely affordable housing proposed for the Council’s Cecil Avenue development? There was no consideration by the committee, and no recommendations. This is a transcript (from the webcast, beginning at 1hour 8minutes and 25seconds into the recording) of the monologue from the Chair:

 

‘Next on my list – Minutes of the previous meeting. Does anybody have any challenges to the minutes of the previous meeting? [Pause – nothing heard] Lovely.

 

Matters Arising. I need to confirm that following a deputation that was received by this committee, historically, in the last municipal year as well actually. The deputation came from one of our residents, Mr Grant, and it was primarily regarding issues of affordability.

 

And I just want to flag in regard to that, as the Chair has received information which, er I’m sorry I’ve lost my …, I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

However, I do want to flag, a bit like my comment about acronyms earlier, affordability has a lot of different phrases now, and I think clarity in our meetings is important, both from us as councillors when we’re asking, that we’re clear what we are asking about, and that we try as best as possible to use the up-to-date and accurate terms when that information is being shared from officers.

 

So, we’d really, really appreciate an effort from all of us to keep meetings as clear and transparent as possible, so residents continue to be really as confident as possible in the information that is being shared. 

 

And again, just to reiterate that the issues of affordability in our housing stock is of serious concern to this committee, and the Community and Wellbeing Committee, and I know a lot of our residents as well. And I know the Cabinet of this Council as well. So, thank you all.’

 

Tucked away in that statement is the key sentence, which slammed the door shut on any consideration of the outstanding Cecil Avenue points (although that scheme is not mentioned by name):

 

‘I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.’

 

What information was received? And what ‘information that was presented’ did it reassure “us” about? Did other committee members even see any of that information, or is “us” just the committee Chair? I think it’s fair to point out a lack of transparency here! 

 

And did you notice the hesitation before that sentence was read out? It certainly sounded as if Cllr. Conneely had to find the piece of paper that sentence was written down on – a carefully constructed form of words that prohibited any further discussion of this “matter arising” by committee members, without giving away any details of why that was the case. Did the Chair write those words herself (and if so who advised her on the best words to use), or was she just given the piece of paper by someone else, and told what she must say?

 

In my blog about this back in May, I said: ‘Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised.’ Well, they’ve got what they wanted, and Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee have allowed them to get away with it.

 

It’s not just on this issue that Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Officers seem to control what the committee scrutinises. A report to the Full Council meeting on 11 July, headed “Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee Chair’s Report”, but actually written by Council Officers and signed off by the then Assistant Chief Executive, included this section on the committee’s work plan for the year ahead:

 

Extract from item 11 on the Full Council meeting agenda, 11 July 2022.’

 

‘Scrutiny is the mechanism by which the Cabinet is held publicly to account.’ But if Brent’s Cabinet is telling the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee what subjects it can look at, those words are meaningless. 

 

Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?

 

Philip Grant.

Chair invites topics for Brent Scrutiny Committee perusal

Will it roar?

 Cllr Dan Filson,  Chair of Brent Council's Scrutiny Committee , marking a different approach to scrutiny has written to all Brent Councillors asking for their ideas on subjects for scrutiny by his committee:

All councillors

The members of Scrutiny Committee and I are considering what subjects should be the subject of scrutiny over the forthcoming year and beyond. Needless to say the number is already large and growing.

Nonetheless, it is open to any member of the council, or the public, to suggest an item for scrutiny. Whether it gets picked will be a matter of human resources. Clearly the Scrutiny Committee, even with 10 meetings a year, won't be able to do justice to a very large number, so we will need to prioritise and use dedicated task groups for some issues. To this end, I want all members of the Council outside the Cabinet to consider whether they would be willing to serve on a Scrutiny Committee task group. If you have specific areas of interest or concern, please say as it may help fit horses to courses.

Issues for scrutiny might fall into:-

- pre-decision, where a decision will be needed or made in the future
- post-decision reviews, whether of a policy or its implementation,
and
- subjects where the Council should get a handle on the problem even if not yet identifying, at this stage, the solution.

Issues for scrutiny may cover the workings of the Council or those of partnership bodies like:-

- the NHS,
- Brent Housing Partnership and local Housing Associations,
- Transport for London
- the local Department of Work and Pension offices
- Voluntary and Community Sector bodies

I am anxious Scrutiny Committee should, whilst looking at issues pertinent to the general wellbeing of Brent residents, get the balance right between looking at issues outside the council and the workings of the council itself, not neglecting the one through excessive focus on the other.

Scrutiny Committee has the power to require lead members and council officers to attend and give evidence, and has some powers in respect of the NHS (there is a good deal of guidance on scrutiny in respect of NHS functions), and can invite, though not require, attendance by others.

The aim of scrutiny should be to investigate, find facts and express judgements. Our mission should be to create transparency on issues where transparency will aid public comprehension of the issues and why decisions have been made the way they were and whether those decisions, and how they were implemented were wrong or mishandled.

For this reason we will aim to give greater publicity to what Scrutiny Committee does and how it operates. To this end, I will be endeavouring to speak at each Brent Connects meeting to explain how we will operate, and conceivably other fora too.

I can assure councillors that I will consider all submissions.

I can also say that scrutiny, despite being in operation since the Local Government Act 2000, is still evolving and developing. We haven't yet got it right. It has been described as "the Lion that failed to roar" but my brief is to get scrutiny working, and I hope you will work with me on that.

Dan Filson's email:  Cllr.Dan.Filson@brent.gov.uk

The next meeting of Scrutiny Committee is at 7pm, June 16th Brent Civic Centre

Health and Childcare on Agenda for Brent Scrutiny Committee next week

The revamped Scrutiny Committee meets on Tuesday June 16th at the Brent Civic Centre.  As it takes quite a bit of navigation to find the agenda on the Brent Council website here are the main items:

Paediatric Services in Brent PDF 200 KB This joint report produced on behalf of Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWHT) provides an overview and summary of Paediatric Services provided to Brent residents.  The report summarises current paediatric provision in Brent and sets out the potential impact on Northwick Park Hospital of the changes to paediatric services at Ealing Hospital taking place on 30 June 2016.

Access to Extended GP Services and Primary Care in Brent - Interim Report PDF 400 KB

This report provides interim feedback on the work of the Scrutiny Task Group focused on Access to Extended GP Services and Primary Care in Brent.  The report outlines the task group scope and methodology and provides an overview of emerging findings and recommendations. 

Public Health - priorities and progress PDF 171 KB

As a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, local authorities have new responsibilities for public health. This report outlines these responsibilities and how the Council is discharging these.

Access to affordable childcare PDF 1 MB This report looks at the challenge of providing access to affordable, quality childcare.

In a report LINK  to the June 22nd Cabinet Scrutiny Chair Dan Filson writes:

In May 2015 the Council selected five new members to serve on the Scrutiny Committee. Scrutiny training was arranged for committee members and this took place on 9 June, with two substitute members taking part. The first scheduled Scrutiny Committee was scheduled for 16 June. The Chair of the Committee can add an oral report on any issues arising. 

The Chair of the Committee has held initial meetings with officers to discuss the process for developing a 2015-16 programme of work and will meet with the full Scrutiny Committee over the coming days to develop further the forward plan. It is unlikely the Committee will map out fully how the forthcoming year will be used as the Committee will want to retain some flexibility as to its programme, not least so it can respond to issues as they may arise and to ensure room for issues that members of the wider public may suggest.

The Chair has invited all members of the Council, not just members of theCommittee, to make proposals for items for inclusion in the work programmeand these will be reviewed by the Committee, as will ideas submitted by the public. Scrutiny Committee will also review the Cabinet Forward Plan andconsider reports from such task groups as are created. The Committee will make greater use of time-limited task groups involving a small group of councillors and others, usually led by a member of Scrutiny Committee.

Brent Cabinet fails to take scrutiny seriously

Interventions by Cllr Neil Nerva and Cllr Roxanne Mashari at the Brent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday centred on the failure of the Cabinet to properly consider the recommendations made by the Committee and its Task Groups.

An example was the recent Air Quality report where the Cabinet merely 'noted' its recommendations. This could mean that officers go away and make detailed action plans or just that the recommendations are vaguely borne in mind or put on the back burner.

The most telling document presented at the Committee was the 'Tracker' which records the Executive/Cabinet response to the two Scrutiny Committees' recommendations. Out of 18 reports only one - the Air Quality Report has a response, and that was just to 'note'.

Click bottom right for full page:

Cllr Mashari questioning officers on the latest Council Assets report complained that there was less information in the latest reports than previous ones that had been referred back as inadequate. She was told that information had been withheld because of 'commercial considerations.'

Cllr Nerva demanded proper responses based on good practice. The information below may help both councillors in their demand for proper process. However well Scrutiny Committees do their work they are of little use if then ignored by the Cabinet.

The Centre for Public Scrutiny publishes a Good Scrutiny Guide LINK 

1.2.1 Powers in relation to councils: in general,
1.2.1.1. Scrutiny can:

• Require information from the council. Councillors sitting on scrutiny committees have broad information access rights which means that they can and should be able to have access to information even on matters exempt for reason of commercial confidentiality, and the other exemptions found in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. More information on information rights can be found in section 4.1 below and at section 5 of the guidance.
  
  
• Require attendance from council officers and councillors. Members of the executive invited to attend scrutiny committee meetings, and council officers issued with similar invitations, are expected to do so. While the law does not specify the seniority of officers who should be invited to give evidence, it will usually be most appropriate for senior officers to attend, even where questions are being asked about operational delivery. More information on engagement with councils officers and executive-side councillors can be found in section 2.1 below.
  
  

• Require that the council provides responses to scrutiny’s recommendations. Importantly, it is for scrutiny to determine the nature of the response. It is legitimate, for example, for scrutiny to require that a substantive response to each recommendation be made individually, with timescales for implementation; scrutiny can require that the executive do not respond to recommendations simply by “noting” them. More information on recommendations and impact can be found in section 5 below.  

Some councils continue to codify how and in what timescales this should be done – see pts 12 and 13 (below) in Camden Council’s constitution) . Brent does not appear to do this.

11. POLICY REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT
The specific functions relating to policy development and review functions of Scrutiny Committees are detailed in Article 6 in Part Two of this Constitution. In addition, the terms of reference of the Resources and Corporate Performance Scrutiny Committee are listed in Part 3.

12. REPORTS FROM THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEES 

a.     The Scrutiny Committee may develop a protocol for the production of reports.

b.    Reports from the Scrutiny Committees shall be submitted within a reasonable
time of their completion to the Proper Officer for consideration by the Cabinet and/or the Council as appropriate.

c.     The Cabinet and/or Council shall send a written response to the Scrutiny
Committee within a reasonable time of considering a report, with a copy to the Proper Officer 1.

1 Section 21 B of the Local Government Act 2000 now imposes a time of limit of two months for the Cabinet/Council to reply

13.MAKING SURE THAT SCRUTINY REPORTS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE CABINET

a) The agenda for Cabinet meetings (including any meetings of single members and the Cabinet (Environment) Sub-Group) shall include an item entitled ‘Issues arising from scrutiny’. Reports of the Scrutiny Committees referred to the Cabinet shall be included at this point in the agenda within one month of it being submitted, unless either they have been considered in the context of the Cabinet’s deliberations on a substantive item on the agenda or the Cabinet gives reasons why they cannot be included and states when they will be considered. The Cabinet shall send a written response to the Scrutiny Committee within a reasonable time of considering a report, as set out in Rule 11 above.

It is worth remembering Barry Gardiner's warning after Labour won the overwhelming majority of Brent council seats. LINK