Cabinet warned over 'dealing with a convicted fraudster' in Bridge Park development

Cllr Dan Filson, Chair of Scrutiny,  made a dramatic intervention in the discussion of the Bridge Park redevelopment at last night's Cabinet meeting.

He drew attention to a paragraph in the report about the Council's development partners:

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

 Filson pointed out that the companies were not registered at Companies House but instead were overseas registered, a Luxembourg Holding Company and 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'.

Earlier Philip Grant had posted this comment on an earlier blog LINK:

As Martin suggests, this article did attract my interest.

When offshore companies are involved, that will always raise suspicions about who is really behind them, and whether tax avoidance may be involved, although in this case you can read a little about GMH on Wikipedia:-

'The General Mediterranean Holding (GMH) is a financial holding company established in 1979 in Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg, founded by Anglo-Iraqi businessman Nadhmi Auchi.

GMH is a diverse business group with activities in Banking & Finance, Real Estate & Construction, Hotel & Leisure, Industrial, Trading & Pharmaceuticals, Communications & IT and Aviation.'

The (publicly available) details do not say in which overseas territory Harborough Invest Inc. is incorporated, or resident for tax purposes.

By chance, I have come across GMH's "agent", Nick Shattock, before, when I was an Inspector of Taxes, and he was a director of Quintain Estates and Developments Plc (having previously been a partner in a firm of City solicitors). That information is on public record, and (of course) I cannot disclose anything which happened when I was responsible for dealing with the Quintain group's company tax affairs, because of Civil Service confidentiality.

As a (past) director of Quintain (the developer behind Wembley Park), it is likely that Mr Shattock has already had dealings with Brent's Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth, Andy Donald. The report to Cabinet proposes that negotiations over the "deal" between Brent and GMH should be left in the hands of Mr Donald (as the "deal" with Galliford Try over the Willesden Green Library Centre redevelopment was).

I have written before about Andy Donald's philosophy LINK but it is worth bearing in mind this particular comment of his:

The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers.

Andy Donald was unwell yesterday but the decision makers, the Cabinet, went ahead and approved the Bridge Park report.

I had pointed out in my earlier posting that the Officer's report made the Appendix on the sliding scale of affordable housing restricted so that the public are unable to see it. Cllr Margaret McClennan said that the developers had offered 10%  (50 homess out of the 500 planned) against the Council's target of 50%. She said that Brent Council wanted at least 30%. Cllr Pavey said the despite the gain of a leisure centre and swimming pool officers should be pushing for a greater amount of affordable housing.

Cllr Mashari said that the Cabinet should not get so caught up in the detail of affordable housing that 'we forget the marvellous facility that Brent would get through the development.'

Questioned about the fear that the housing would be sold abroad as had  happened at the Willesden Green Library development Cllr McClennan said that the Council would demand that the homes be first marketed locally.

The Recommendations adopted by the Cabinet 'delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth (Andy Donald) in consulation with the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Operarating Officer to enter into negotiations, finalise and enter into a land sale agreement with General Meditteranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc.'

Asked about how any issues that might arise from the negotiations and financial checks would be dealt with the Cabinet were told that the lead member, Margaret McClennan, would be consulted.

The fear that several members of the public were left with was that, given the overseas status of the companies involved,  Brent might be able to do little to persuade them on the proportion of affordable housing and marketing front.

Charities win right to challenge legal aid cuts to prisonsers

-->

Two charities have today (Tuesday 28 July) won the right to challenge legal aid cuts for prisoners after the Court of Appeal ruled there was a risk that the system could be unfair and unlawful.

The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) have been inundated with requests for help from children and prisoners since the cuts were introduced in December 2013.
The cuts have coincided with an unprecedented deterioration of safety standards in English and Welsh prisons and a rise in suicides, compounded by staff shortages.

A challenge by the Howard League and PAS was blocked by the High Court in March 2014 – but that decision was today overturned by Court of Appeal judges Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lady Justice Sharp.

The Court of Appeal’s decision means that the case can now proceed to a full trial. 

The charities argued in court that there were seven key areas of work cut from the ambit of legal aid that carry an unacceptable risk of unfairness. These included:

·         cases where prisoners appear before the Parole Board about their suitability for a move to open prison (but not release);

·         cases about pregnant prisoners being allocated to mother and baby units;

·         segregation;

·         access to offending behaviour work;

·         having a suitable home to go to on release from prison.

 
Unlike other cuts to legal aid, where a safety net was introduced to allow people to apply for legal aid in exceptional circumstances, the cuts for prisoners were absolute: there is no lifeline for even the most vulnerable or incapacitated prisoner to apply for legal aid for prison law matters.

In its detailed decision, the Court of Appeal recognises the risk of systemic unfairness as a result of the legal aid cuts to prison law. Lord Justice Leveson concludes: “The question of inherent unfairness concerns not simply the structure of the system which may be capable of operating fairly, but whether there are mechanisms in place to accommodate the arguably higher risk of unfair decisions for those with mental health, learning or other difficulties which effectively deprive them of the ability effectively to participate in, at least, some of the decisions to which [the applicants’ counsel] Ms Kaufmann refers.”

Lord Justice Leveson adds in the judgment that the Howard League and PAS are “pre-eminent in this field” and have “the very highest reputations”. 

In the year following the cuts, calls to the Howard League’s advice line increased by 45 per cent. The legal team, which provides the only dedicated legal service for children and young people in prison in the country, is overwhelmed with requests from young people with nowhere else to turn.

Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) represents adults (over-21s) and receives thousands of letters and calls each year. The charity simply does not have the physical or financial resources to deal with the large amount of requests that it now receives for pro bono assistance and representation.

The first key point of the case argues that the removal of legal aid for a small number of important Parole Board cases is unlawful. These cases affect prisoners on life sentences and imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences who can only progress to open conditions if the Parole Board advises that it would be safe for them to do so. This is important because, once in open conditions, prisoners can apply to work and receive education in the community. This step is key for prisoners’ rehabilitation and public safety. Making prisoners go through this stage without legal advice and representation is counter-productive and increases the risk to the public.

The second argument concerns the removal of legal aid for prisoners facing particular difficulties such as mothers threatened with separation from their babies, children and disabled prisoners who need a support package so they can be released safely, and mentally ill prisoners held in isolation. Managing people through long prison sentences is a skilful business which needs to be handled with extreme care so that they can resettle safely into the community.

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We welcome today’s decision, which offers hope to children and young people in prison.

“The Howard League’s legal team has represented many hundreds of children in prison and we want them to thrive inside and on release. Legal aid gets them the best help to achieve that.”

Deborah Russo, Joint Managing Solicitor at the Prisoners’ Advice Service, said: “We are delighted with the outcome of today’s hearing. The legal aid cuts to prison law have resulted in prisoners’ access to justice being severely curtailed with the consequence of further isolating an already very marginalised sector of our society.

“We therefore welcome today’s judgment, which now allows for a full hearing of the case and are thrilled to be now given the opportunity to put forward our case for legal aid for the most deprived and disadvantaged of prisoners.”

Brent Cabinet under pressure on three fronts

In the absence of Muhammed Butt, Cllr Michael Pavey presided over yesterday's Cabinet meeting with all the jaunty aplomb of the driver of the Dundee bound express as he approached the Bridge of Tay on 'the last Sabbath day of 1879, which will be remember'd for a very long time.'

The Cabinet was marked by a bitter exchange over the Preston Community Library,  an accusation that an officer's report had turned negative comments into positives in the Tudor Gardens consultation, and a warning that in the Bridge Park development Brent Council was dealing with a 'convicted fraudster'.

Even if Pavey was breezily unaware of what was happening the Brent Communications Team certainly were. No sooner had the meeting ended then the Brent and Kilburn Times reporter, seated in the front row of the public gallery, found three members of what appeared to be the Communications Team, looming over her.

They quickly whisked her off for a post-cabinet briefing in what appeared to be a damage limitation exercise.

As she disappeared with her escorts into the innards of the drum I called out, 'Publish and be damned!'

I hope she does but meanwhile keep an eye on Wembley Matters for more on last night's meeting.

Preston Community Library likely to be weekends only from September until Christmas

From Preston Community Library Campaign

We are holding a meeting in the library at 2.30 this Thursday to update our volunteers, library users and supporters about recent developments, and to discuss the future of the library. All readers of this mailing are welcome.

At the moment, it seems very likely that from September until Christmas we will be sharing the building with a school and that the library will operate at weekends only. The future beyond Christmas remains very uncertain. I wish I could tell you more - the fact is that our current licence expires on 31 July and, with just four days to go, we are still waiting for anything in writing from Brent about what will happen after that.

This evening's meeting of Brent's Cabinet will be asked to extend school use of the Preston Library building until July 2017. The report states that  "Proposed future school use will take account of the local aspiration for this community library to continue in some way."  I will leave you to judge for yourselves whether this constitutes a strong commitment to the future of our library. The Cabinet meeting is at 7 tonight, 27 July, in the Civic Centre; members of the public are free to attend.

This Saturday there will be a plant sale from 1 until 5 at the library; plants for sale will include cannas, scented- and coloured-leaved geraniums, roses and several kinds of chillies. There will also be books for sale. All proceeds will be used to fund the library.

Our next quiz will be on Monday 10 August at 7.30 in The Preston. As usual we aim to start the quiz promptly at 8. The following quiz will be on Monday 21 September, same time, same venue.

Finally, four years ago Rosie Hayes reported on Brent's library closures for ynuk.tv. Last week she returned to the scene of the crime, and her report can be seen here:

Brent Council: South Kiburn Trust did not apply for music licence in time for the Festival

Contrary to reports that Brent Council has revoked the live music licence for the South Kilburn Festival at 5pm on Friday, the day before the Festival, a Brent Council spokesperson said today that the  South Kilburn Trust had not applied for the licence in time for the festival.

The live music was transferred from the park to the OK Club on Saturday.

Community Mental Health Service changes to be discussed by Brent Cabinet tonight

Plans to restructure Brent Community Mental Health services are on the already crowded for tonight's Cabinet.  The current budget is £5.4m and the proposals account for £350k of the £500k reduction tabled for 2015-16.  The model is the outcome of partnership wotk between Brent Council, Central and NW London NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Brent CCG.

The Report LINK gives the views of users and staff:

USERS

· The service needs to be genuinely holistic, taking into account all health and community support needs. 


· The service needs to be person-centred, with the service user setting their own goals. 


· Better information should be available at the point of referral about what services are available, and how they are accessed. 


· Assessment and Brief Treatment needs to be improved – assessments aren’t timely enough and brief treatment is not always provided. 


· Community services for those who are not in acute crisis need to be improved so that support doesn’t drop away when an individual’s mental health starts to improve. 


· The service needs to be better linked with the third sector in order to address broader needs. 


· There needs to be clear information for service users on what they should do if they go into crisis and they need emergency support. 


STAFF

· There should be fewer handoffs between teams and service users should move less between teams. 


· There should be clarity around third sector services in Brent and how service users can access them. 


· The single front door, with senior people carrying out the first assessment, should be more effective than it currently is where services find they are “playing catch up” with the core assessment – eliminate the need for more than one assessment. 


· Bureaucracy should be reduced in the new model

· The advantages and disadvantages of generic care coordinators should be considered – new skills have been learned, even if social care assessments aren’t as good. 


· The continuity of care should be improved. 


· Staff may feel unsettled if they don’t like the new structure – Brent already has 
recruitment and retention issues 


· The service should have sufficient capacity to manage demand 


· Links to other services, such as Housing, need to improve 


· Effective discharge planning with service users is essential. 


· The implementation plan has to be well thought through. The impact on service 
users has to be considered as services are reorganised and staff moved around. 


· Ensure specialist functions aren’t lost in the reorganisation. 


· Interfaces shouldn’t be replicated elsewhere, such as between Primary Care Plus 
and the secondary service 


The report recognises that a change of culture is required in the proposed new model:

Barnet Unison vs Capita Tribunal starts today

Message from Barnet Unison
 
Employment Tribunal starts TODAY 27 July 2015 

Barnet UNISON members may remember the following awful headlines:

 

CAPITA WINS - MASSIVE JOB LOSSES FOR BARNET COUNCIL STAFF LINK

UNISON call on Capita to reverse mass redundancies in Barnet LINK

130 Capita CSG redundancies is far too many....... LINK

Barnet UNISON represented members throughout the redundancy process after which UNISON submitted a claim against Capita. The legal process does take a long time, but finally the date of the hearing has been set.

 

The Tribunal will start on Monday 27 July 2015 at 10:00am at the Watford Employment Tribunal at the following address: Radius House, 51 Clarendon Road, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD17 1HP.

 

The case is due to last until Friday 7 August 2015.

 

For staff/members/public interested in this case Tribunal Hearings are open to the public

Council's Bridge Park deal with developers indicates little affordable housing & no transparency

The site including Unisys, Bridge Park, Technology House and car breakers

Last week the Planning Committee discussed how to increase the amount of affordable housing provided by developers to meet the 50% affordable target and to make the issue of Viability Assessments mores transparent LINK.

Tomorrow the Cabinet will discuss a report LINK on the Unisys-Bridge Park-Technology House development which admits that the amount of affordable housing will be much lower than 50% and where an Appendix with a 'sliding scale' of affordable house is 'restricted' and not available to the public.  The scheme consists of c500 homes, hotel and leisure centre.

The scheme is rather similar to the Willesden Library development where the Council gets a piece of infrastructure in exchange for providing land. As readers will know the Willesden Green flats contain no affordable units and were sold to overseas investors by Singapore agents. In exchange we got a small 'Cultural Centre' which by coincidence is due to open tomorrow. The community lost a good local bookshop, a cinema and an open space.

At Bridge Park a new leisure centre will be built with a much needed swimming pool, but other features of the current centre will not be provided.

Among the lost facilities will be the function hall, small business units, nursery and meeting rooms for faith groups.  PLIAS Resettlement , a community based not for profit organisation that provides services primary targeting offenders and ex-offenders to enable them to integrate them back into society, will lose its base.  They join Stonebridge Adventure Playground and the Welsh School that lost their premises through the redevelopment just up the road. The report admits that despite a pledge to Cabinet in June 2013 to help the nursery find new premises, that has not been done.

The report's Equalities Assessment claims that a positive aspect is:

With a high young population, the provision of new housing in the local area which the population could take advantage of is a positive in that it provides the opportunity for young people to move out of their family home bit also provides the opportunity to stay in the local community.

Even the officers seem to recognise that this might be seen as disingenuous:

However, it is not known if new housing would be affordable, especially given that Stonebridge ranks as the lowest ward in terms of median household incomes.

Of course it won't be affordable, which is presumably what your secret Appendix says!

Another aspect that might set the noses of ex-Tax Inspectors Dan Filson and Philip Grant twitching, are the developer and finance details.

The ex-Unisys site is owned by Harborough Invest INC (Harborough) to whom General Mediterranean Holdings SA (GMH) are a parent company).  The Council will sell part of its own site (Technology House) to Harborough/GMH.

In June 2013 the Cabinet agreed to pursue this option with a different subsidiary company of GMH: 'Tucan, a special purpose vehicle proposed for the purposes of this development'.  GMH now say that Tucan Investments is no longer in the picture and the Council state 'GMH have explained that it would be sensible for the landowner to be party in the agreement rather than a new development vehicle.'

The main report Financial Status Checks (4.6) states

General Mediterranean Holdings SA and Harborough Invest Inc are both in overseas ownership and not registered at Companies House, As such the process for carrying out financial checks on these companies cannot be completed in the normal manner and the required financial information in an appropriate format is awaited. Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to confirmation of satisfactory financial standing.

Another aspects is of course ensuring that the Council (or rather we residents) are getting value for money. The reports says (3.6):

Since the June 2013 Executive, negotiations with GMH have been ongoing through their agent Nick Shattock Real Estate (NSRE) (now Chainwork Capital) [another change of name] to ensure that the Council receives best value for its lands. As a result the Heads of Terms have changed and it is proposed that the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth concludes negotiations and enters into Heads of Terms with GMH and Harborough Invest Inc in substantially the form set out in Appendix 3 of this report [which is restricted].

The Council employed Deloitte LLP in June 2014 to see if the disposal of their land to GMH represented 'best consideration' - Deloitte concluded it did not. the report goes on (4.4)

Deloitte LLP re-engaged with GMH, via their agent NSRE to seek in principal agreement to the various development costs, revenues and timescales. This exercise resulted in the Council receiving a revised offer from GMH as at September 2014. as a result of the discussions between DRE and NSRE, Deloitte LLP conclusion was that whilst they did not necessarily agree with all of the points raised in the NSRE offer letter, the Revised GMH offer for the Land at Bridge Park was above that of Deloittee revised opinion of value (Appendix 4) [yes, restricted of course].

The report goes on (5.6)

Through pursuing a deal with GMH the Council is not releasing the option of disposing of the Council land to the market and not giving other organisations the chance to bid for the opportunity if this had been available  on the open market. The land price has been robustly tested in order to align with best market price and external consultants to Brent have undertaken detailed development appraisal, valuation and sensitivity resting work confirming the GMH & Harborough proposal to represent best value.

The consultant's report has not been published.

Persuaded?