Move to discuss Bridge Park land sale to GMH defeated by Brent Labour

I drew attention to the above notice that was posted on the Agenda of Monday's Council Meeting in a recent article LINK claiming that the public interest was not served by curtailing discussion on these important items.

At the Council Meeting Cllr Warren moved the suspension of Standing Orders to allow discussion to take place but this was heavily defeated by Labour and other councillors.

In the course of the discussion Cllr Warren, speaking to Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, referred to 'Your friend Mr Auchi'.  Sir Nadhmi Shakir Auchi is Chairman of the off-shore British Virgin Islands company General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH) which is Brent Council's partner in the redevelopment of Bridge Park.  Muhammed Butt is the lead member for the conditional land sale of the Bridge Park site to GMH.

At the Brent Cabinet on January 16th Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of the Council, said that she was 'thrilled' by the Bridge Park deal. LINK

Auchi is controversial because of a 2003 allegation of  fraud LINK and of course the whole issue of tax havens and tax avoidance is a current political issue with Jeremy Corbyn promising action by a future Labour Government.

Cllr Thomas intervened to call for Cllr Warren to withdraw his statement about 'Your friend Mr Auchi' directed at his leader, as the Council Meeting was being streamed and he wouldn't want a 'wrong impression' to be given. Warren, saying he couldn't remember exactly what  he'd said,went on to say, 'Mr Auchi has connections with the Labur Party. Let me say that. That is what I was referring to.'

The alleged link goes back to 2001 when the Guardian published an article entitled 'A Tycoon, a Minister and Interpol' LINK and involved Keith Vaz MP.

You can see the live stream and the vote on suspensions of standing orders here:

NHS market rent demand threatens the future of Brent Advocacy Concern

I asked to speak at the Brent Health and Wellbeing Board  yesterday on behalf of Brent Advocacy Concern who were at another meeting, as were Cllr Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr McLennan, Deputy Leader.

Chair Cllr Hirani, who has the discretion to allow speakers, refused my request on the ground that I had not given 24 hours notice.

My request was in response to a request from Brent Advocacy Concern, a 25 year old charity in Brent, who work with people with disabilities.

NHS England, through NHS Estates, are now charging 'market' rents on spaces in their property and this is impacting on many charities and voluntary organisations who work on health issues.  As the STP proposals involve working in 'Hubs' bringing together different services, including voluntary organisations, this is clearly an issue.

You cannot have a policy of working with voluntary organisations and then pricing them out.  This impacts on the whole strategy of prevention and out of hospital care.

Brent Advocacy Concern received a letter from NHS England on January 11th, which had been sent to all Clinical Commissioning Groups, including Brent, about the move towards market rents.

John Healy of BAC wrote to me:

In order to stay in our office we know that we will have to pay 'rent' on the space. We will also be required to pay for 'capital costs'. Then comes the 'services charges'. Followed by the 10% Management fee. And finally  another 5% Management fee towards the overall lease. There may be other charges such as VAT but as a charity we might be exempt.

I cannot make it myself tonight, as I am booked for a council meeting at the same time.
Anyway, we will have been providing services in Brent continuously for over 25 years (we became a registered charity in Jan. 1991) but we will have to close down as soon as the NHS ASKS FOR THE MONEY.  So far they have not told us anything but I am expecting 'the bad news' anytime soon.

Maybe you or someone could ask a question as to what help might be offered to help small charities to stay within NHS properties such as The Willesden Centre for Health & Care.

That was the question I wanted to ask as it clearly affects more than just Brent Advocacy Concern. The organisation contacted Brent Healthwatch after the publication of an article outlining their situation on this blog LINK but received no response.  I spoke to Healthwatch at the meeting and gave them more details and hope that this results in some action, or at least a recognition of the problem.

John Healy added today (Wednesday):

At the last Community &Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 23rd of November, 2016 it was resolved that:-

(1) "Brent CCG together with NHS Property Services Ltd. develop 'a social value' policy detailing how to maximise use of void space in NHS buildings by the voluntary sector" Agenda item 5, 'NHS Estate in Brent'.

A RESOURCE THEY MIGHT FIND USEFUL CAN BE FOUND AT:-

How to keep it local--- A 5 step guide for councillors & commissioners.  It covers The Social Value Act

and it can be obtained from

Locality.org.uk

Tulip Siddiq may leave Shadow Front Bench over Article 50 vote

Tulip Siddiq, MP for  Hampstead and Kilburn, which covers three Brent wards, in a series of media interviews yesterday said she was prepared to lose her Shadow Front Bench position,  over Labour's decision to vote in favour of invoking Article 50.

She told the BBC's World at One:

 It is something I am considering not supporting and voting against because 75% of the population in Hampstead and Kilburn voted to remain.

If I’m representing the wishes of my constituents I have to make a decision accordingly and that’s how I’ll vote.
 

There are definitely things to consider about democracy and elections. I don’t want to run another referendum.

Meanwhile Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green Party made her position clear over the Surpeme Court ruling:

 This case is a win for parliamentary democracy, and a blow for those ministers who planned to railroad Brexit through without any proper scrutiny.

The spotlight now falls on MPs – and in particular the Labour Party – to properly scrutinise the Government’s plans and act accordingly. That must mean that Labour rethink the support they’ve given to triggering article 50 prematurely, and instead join those of us who refuse to be pushed into Theresa May’s artificial Brexit timetable.

It’s astonishing that Ministers ever thought it was right to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament - and their battle in the courts really does expose a contempt for the democratic process within the Conservative party.

I will not be capitulating to the Tories over Brexit – and will vote against prematurely triggering Article 50 in the Spring. As the co-leader of a Party which stands for environmental, social and economic justice I will not support a Government offering no assurances to EU nationals living in Britain, threatening to turn this country into a tax haven and planning to throw us off the Brexit cliff edge by ending our membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.

Quamari Barnes Memorial Fund Appeal

A Memorial Fund has been set up to help Quamari Barnes' parents with funeral and burial expenses following his killing outside Capital City academy on Monday.  Dealing with sudden death is difficult enough without the added stress of money worries caused by funeral expenses that couldn't possible have been expected.

A Go Funding page has been set up by Quamari's God Parent Sasha Mitchell HERE:

This is what Sasha wrote about Quamari:

On January 23rd 2017, we unexpectedly lost Quamari Serunkuma Barnes in a horrific attack outside his school.

We send our children to school and trust that they are safe but Quamari was chased down outside his school gates and stabbed to death.

He was a respectful, loving good boy and it truly breaks my heart that we lost him in this way.

He wasn't in gangs, drugs or any crimes. He was just a beautiful boy who loved his friends and family.

Quamari was my Godson, and I have set up this account with the permission of his parents to support and assist them through this difficult time. They will be receiving all of the funds from this campaign.

We are asking for 20,000 to cover all funeral and burial expenses and other expenses they may incur.

Our family thanks everyone for their thoughts and prayers during this horrendous time.

We would appreciate any donations.

Please help spread the word!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/-quamari-barnes-willesden-stabbing-london-9684433

#Justice4Quamari

#QdotzWorld

Cllr Mili Patel takes on the challenge of leading on Children and Young People

Cllr Mili Patel (Alperton) has taken over the role of Lead Member for Children and Young People in the Brent Cabinet.   She succeeds Cllr Wilhelmina Mitchell-Murray whose role had been covered by Cllr Muhammed Butt since December 1st 2016 because Cllr Mitchell-Murray was said to unwell. Today the Kilburn Times has quoted Muhammed Butt as saying that Cllr Mitchell-Murray had resigned for 'personal reasons.

The resignation means that three members of the 8 strong Cabinet (Pavey, Mashari and Mitchell-Murray) have resigned since Butt's successful retention of the Labour leadership in May 2016 after a challenge from Michael Pavey.

Cllr Patel had been Lead Member for just 25 minutes when she was asked to speak at last night's Council Meeting so  understandably she limited herself to a brief introduction.

Cllr Patel went to Furness Primary School and Claremont High and is a parliamentary researcher.   She previously worked for Frank Dobbs MP. She is married to fellow Brent councillor  Matt Kelcher who is chair of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Mili Patel is on the board of Brent Housing Partnership which is likely to be dismantled when Brent Council brings council housing back in-house.

Her other Council positions are listed as:

• Corporate Parenting Committee (Chair)
• Council
• Employees' Joint Consultative Committee
• General Purposes Committee
• Health and Wellbeing Board
• Highways Committee

The Children and Young People position is challenging at the best of time, covering as it does local authority schools, children's social work, safeguarding and the wellbeing of all young children and young people in Brent regardless of the type of school that they attend, but with funding cuts to schools in the headlines, the job is even more daunting.

Cllr Patel would have got a taste of that in the debate that took place at Council on school funding  when the following Labour motion was discussed. She did not contribute to the debate.

PROTECT BRENT’S SCHOOLS FROM GOVERNMENT CUTS

This Council condemns government proposals for a National Schools Funding Formula and rejects any effort to pay for the failure of an ideologically imposed programme of austerity by choking off essential and already insufficient funding for the education of children and young people in Brent.

Councillor Patricia Harrison Preston Ward

During the debate Cllr John Warren lambasted various Labour councillors quoting the bank balances of schools where they were governors. He claimed Brent schools had up to £30m  stashed away.  He did not mention that schools have to justify these  balances to the Council  and provide evidence of the ear-marked projects to which they are allocated.

The debate can be seen here:

Brent’s 2015/16 accounts – progress on objections to the Cara Davani “pay-off

Guest blog by Philip Grant

As it is a couple of months since I wrote about the latest developments in “the Cara Davani Saga” LINK , I thought that the many “Wembley Matters” readers who are interested in this case might like an update on what has been happening.

The Auditor at Messrs KPMG dealing with the Council’s accounts to 31 March 2016 is still considering the objections from five local electors against Brent’s payment of £157,610 to its former Director of HR, so I cannot pass on any details which are still confidential at this stage. However, I hope that they will eventually come into the public domain when the Auditor has completed his enquiries.

In my guest blog of 19 November I said that I was willing to discuss the issues raised with Brent Council, along with the other objectors, as encouraged to do by the Auditor. I did ask to see a number of documents relevant to the payments I had objected to, although my request was rejected, in respect of most of them, by Brent’s Chief Finance Officer. Despite this, along with three other objectors, I met with him and the Council’s Chief Executive on the evening of 6 December 2016. The fifth objector, Cllr. John Warren, could not make that meeting, but had met with them separately earlier that day.

Although no agreement was reached, the discussions took place in a constructive atmosphere, and helped both sides to understand the other’s position. The objectors explained to Ms Downs and Mr Hall why they felt that the £157k paid to Ms Davani was wholly inappropriate expenditure for the Council to incur, and that this was money which should instead have been used to provide services for people in Brent.

The Chief Executive agreed that the whole episode did not reflect positively on the Council, and she did not dispute that elements had been poorly managed, but said that steps have since been taken to ensure that the organisation no longer operates in this way.

Much of the meeting was spent going through the list of documents I had requested to see, and discussing points arising from these. Mr Hall explained that the Council felt it could not allow the objectors to see any legally privileged advice or confidential documents (which was most of them!). However, the auditor would be provided with all of the information that is available, so that he can reach a decision based on that evidence.

Although we could not see the documents, the discussions did provide some interesting information.

We asked for more information about the circumstances which gave rise to Cara Davani leaving Brent. When Ms Downs provided a brief outline of the grounds on which the former HR Director claimed she was entitled to compensation from the Council, the objectors expressed their incredulity. I am sorry that details have to remain confidential for now, but I can say that we asked Ms Downs whether she was joking, and she said that she was not!

One surprising fact was that for many items I had asked to see, no documented evidence had yet been found, even though it should have existed. Ms Downs agreed it was unthinkable that key decisions, such as whether to take disciplinary action against Cara Davani in 2014 or whether to make a settlement agreement with her in 2015, had not been discussed with the Council Leader by the then interim Chief Executive, even though the final decision would be for Christine Gilbert to make.

The absence of any evidence of those discussions suggests that either they were entirely verbal (with no written note made of them), or that they had “off the record” written communications, or even that evidence was deleted or shredded before Ms Gilbert left Brent Council. [Dear Reader: If you can provide any definite information (not just speculation) on this matter, and are willing to share it not only with me, but also with Carolyn Downs and the Auditor, it would be helpful if you could do so, please.]

Following the meeting, Brent Council sent the Auditor its formal response to our objections on 14 December. The Council maintains its view: ‘… that the settlement payment to the former HR Director was made lawfully and that, under the circumstances that existed at the time it was agreed, it was the most appropriate way forward in order to protect the Council’s financial position.’ It recommends to the Auditor ‘… that you should either dismiss the Objections, or at any rate conclude that you should take no action in respect of them.’

Brent’s response concludes by referring to a separate letter sent to the Auditor, attaching the confidential and legally privileged documents, and makes clear that the Council does not consent to these being disclosed to anyone else (i.e. the objectors!).

I wrote to the Auditor about these documents, pointing out that he had invited the objectors to make further comments, and that it was unfair to expect us to do so without being able to see the evidence on which those comments needed to be based. Just before Christmas he did reply to say that he would share with us all of the documents which he considered material to his decision. We have not seen any of these documents yet.

The sticking point is over whether the objectors should be allowed to see the legal advice, which appears to provide the sole justification for the Council making the £157k payment to Cara Davani. The Auditor could not force Brent to disclose that advice to him, but the Council did so voluntarily, and there is a provision which allows the Auditor to disclose information: ‘…except where the disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the effective performance of …’ his functions as Auditor.

As well as giving an assurance that I would keep the information confidential, I have pointed out that disclosing the legal advice would actually assist the effective performance of his function as Auditor, by giving me the opportunity to either satisfy myself that the legal advice, and actions taken by the Council as a result of it, were lawful, or to explain to him why the evidence supported my objection that the payment involved was unlawful.

What I can tell you about the legal advice is that, although it is said to have been given by an employment law QC, it was not a written legal opinion from him, but a note made by a Brent Council officer of what the QC is claimed to have said. That advice was summarised by the Chief Finance Officer to Brent’s Audit Committee on 30 June 2016, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting:

‘Conrad Hall explained that in May 2015 advice had been sought from a leading QC specialising in employment law.  The QC had been recommended by the Council’s Monitoring Officer from a framework contract operated by the London boroughs legal alliance.  His advice, in conference, had in summary been that the Council lacked good grounds to conduct a fair dismissal of the Council’s former HR Director for a variety of reasons, and had it attempted to do so it was likely to have been found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal.  Conrad Hall further advised that had such a course of action been attempted then the Council had been notified that a substantial claim would have been submitted by the former HR Director and that under those circumstances the decision had been taken to seek to settle matters by way of a compromise agreement.’ 

Once we have been given the opportunity to see all the documents which the Auditor does disclose to us, all five objectors can submit their further comments. One of the points that I am likely to make is that there appears to be no evidence that Brent dismissed, or even attempted to dismiss, Cara Davani, so how could the Council be ‘… found to have acted unfairly by an Employment Tribunal’ for something that it didn’t do?

I’m afraid that readers will have to wait for the Auditor to complete his enquiries before we discover the outcome of this final attempt to get something done about what many of us feel was an injustice. I hope that the result will be worth waiting for.

Philip Grant.

Brent Council calls on residents to make their views known on 2017-18 budget

Brent Council has issued a press release advertising the last meetings where residents can express views on the upcoming 2017-18 and by implication the 2018-19 and 2019-20 budgets.   The release (below) covers 'spending' plans but not the proposed cuts or increases in charges, although it does mention 'raising income to balance the books'. 

The Council is likely to front-load an increase in Council Tax of 4.99% in 2017-18 and again in 2018-19 but with a smaller increase in 2019-20. If this is approved 'savings' will  be needed of £5.4m in 2017-18, £0.7m in 2018-19 and a whopping £13.7m in 2019-20.  The front-loading was offered by the government so that councils can address (but only very partially) the rising costs of adult social care:

Residents across the borough are being called to have their say on Brent Council's tax and spending proposals for next year before an online consultation closes on February, 1 and at a final round of upcoming meetings with councillors.

The Brent Connects meetings at Kilburn (January, 24), Willesden (February, 7) and Kingsbury & Kenton (February, 8) form part of a ten-week consultation on the council's budget plans.

Shoppers to Asda in Wembley on Monday 30 January will also have the chance to give their views, as a supermarket roadshow of the proposals makes its final stop having visited Morrisons in Queensbury on January 14, and Sainsbury's in Willesden on January 18.

Online and at the meetings, residents will have the opportunity to have their say on the council's plans to raise council tax in response to budget cuts from central government, in order to protect services.

As well as discussing how the council plans to raise income to balance the books, views are also sought on the council's spending proposals for 2017/18.

Currently, these include spending in areas to help make Brent cleaner and safer, rubbish and recycling collection, boosting jobs and skills, protecting the vulnerable, increasing council housing, maintaining parks and open spaces and giving every child the best start in life possible.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

"It is vital that the work we do as a Council reflects the priorities of our residents. That's we are asking the people of Brent to tell us what matters to them. I would encourage as many people as possible to visit the website, or join us at their local Brent Connects meetings"

Have your say online by 1 February 2017 or come along to one of the Brent Connects public meetings in January or February 2017.

Views taken at the Willesden and the Kingsbury & Kenton Brent Connects meetings, after the consultation portal has closed, will be added as an appendix to the Cabinet report and considered on Monday 13 February 2017 at the Cabinet meeting.

Full Council will then make a decision on the final budget for 2017/18 on Monday 27 February 2017.

Savings already agreed and new policy options can be found here:

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s45300/Appendix%20One%20-%20Previously%20Agreed%20Savings.htm

http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s45302/Appendix%20Three%20-%20Detailed%20New%20Policy%20Options.pdf

Will Ark hit the rocks in Barnet? Join protesters on Wednesday Jan 25th

Residents, parents and teachers are  planning to turn out in force at Barnet Planning Committee  at Barnet Town Hall at  7pm on Wednesday when the Education Funding Agency makes an application LINK for the proposed Ark Pioneer School.  The EFA will to attempt to “solve”problems raised  by residents  regarding traffic congestion, high levels of air pollution, little parking for staff, dense development, 7 days a week schooling, transporting children from the other side of the borough and answer claims that the proposed site is not where new housing calls for a large all -through school such as this. The 4-18 school  in Barnet Lane would commence with 90 children admitted to  Reception and 180 to Year 7.

The EFA are proposing to buy up roads around the school and meet the cost of re-modelling them. Those opposed to the plans are asking whether the money could not be better used on existing schools.

It is not only the planning aspects of the school that concern teachers and parents but the proposed teaching method. It will be called Ark Pioneer because it introduces a new system, unlike those at existing Ark schools in Brent. 'Blended learning' through technology is central  to the plans.

In an extended article on the Local Schools Network website LINK Matthew Bennett traces the origin of the concept back to Rocketship Education in the US:

John Danner’s plan for Rocketship was to ‘make something that’s KIPP-like in terms of results’.  The chain copied many features of the KIPP (US Charter Schools) model:  an extended school day and year, a narrowing of the curriculum in order to focus on literacy and maths, and a ‘data-driven’ approach geared to driving up students’ test scores.  In 2012, the young ‘Rocketeers’ had an 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. day.  This was divided into two 100-minute blocks of literacy instruction, one 100-minute block of maths, and a further 100 minutes in the ‘learning lab’.  There was no provision for art, music or PE.  The current curriculum seems to be slightly broader, including science, social studies and art as well as maths and reading.  But science is ‘embedded’ in maths, and social studies and art are ‘embedded’ in literacy instruction.  50 per cent of teachers’ pay is tied to their students’ scores in maths and reading tests.

But more than that teachers and parents are concerned that this model will be used to have lessons delivered by teaching assistants rather than qualified teachers, with children overseen as they work on ipads.   John Danner made it plain that the method was aimed at saving money:

-->

I do think we’re at a time, as a country, where this stuff really fits pretty well with economic crises … when you’re in a situation when you’re gonna be laying people off anyway, how do you make that as good as possible, and one of the ways is to have more of the work happening somewhere other than a classroom, through technology

John Danner, co-founder of Rocketship Education, 2010 (ibid)

Barnet NUT are holding a meeting on Wednesday but will finish in time to get down to Barnet Town Hall.  Jenny Brown, a teacher, resident and parent, as well as member of the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education (CASE), is urging people to join in the protest at Barnet Town Hall:

I think it is vital that people turn up  on Wednesday to apply pressure as part of the challenge to computer learning replacing  teachers. 

Teaching is based on a  pedagogy not rote content. Our profession is being threatened along with creative thinking, well being and the development of each child, young person and teachers of the future.