No response from Brent Council to Audit's concerns over potential conflict of interest in First Wave Housing and i4B Holdings

Wembley Matters recently drew attention to the Brent Council Internal Audit that found a possible conflict of interest in the directorships of Brent's housing companies First Wave Housing and i4B Holdings. See LINK. Wembley Matters drew attention to the role of the councillor director Saqib Butt, who is the brother of the Leader of Brent Council as well as Brent Council officers.  

Brent Council responded to the Audit:  Management Response: We will review job descriptions to identify and mitigate conflicts of interest.

The Internal Audit found 5 medium risks the first of which said:

Responsibilities for Council employees working for the companies: The management and two of the five directors of the companies are employed by the Council and line managed within the Council. This may create a conflict of interest as management may feel they need to represent the interests of the Council rather than the companies. These responsibilities need to be clarified to ensure that these conflicts are effectively managed, and the companies are robustly represented in disputes with the Council.

Proposed changes to the Board membership and governance arrangements for both companies are tabled for Cabinet on September 12th. The officer's report makes no mention of resolving the potential conflict of interest and merely substitutes one Brent Council officer,  Phil Porter, Corporate Director for Adult Social Care, for another, Gail Tolley, who steps down from the boards following her retirement as Strategic Director for Children and Young People.

The Independent Chair, Martin Smith's and Independent Non-executive Director. Akimntoye's terms of office are recommended to be extended for another 3 years. 

As Peter Gadson, Corporate Director, Residents Srrvices stays on the board, it means that three of the five directors are either Brent employees or a Brent councillor. 

No mention is made of the Council's promise to review job descriptions and mitigate conflicts of interest. Instead the Cabinet's overall control of both companies is emphasised:  

As sole Shareholder for i4B and the sole Guarantor for FWH, the Council has an important role in providing strategic direction for the companies and retains control of key decisions. Cabinet is the strategic supervisory body with ultimate responsibility for ensuring governance of the companies and the power to appoint and dismiss Directors and the Company Secretary are reserved to Cabinet. Cabinet therefore has the power to agree the Recommendations contained in this report

Auditor: Brent better placed than most London councils to survive the financial challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic

The Audit Findings for the London Borough of Brent, to be considered by the Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday September 8th are rather better than might be expected. LINK

The report by Grant Thornton  states:

 

.....To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs.

 

The report looks forward to 2020/21 and the impact of the Covid19 measures taken by the Council during lockdown and the impact on income.  Having had shaky reserves in the past the Council has been reluctant to eat into reserves but may have to as a consquence of a £29m funding gap, as well as reducing demand for services and 'efficiency'  cuts:

If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

A review of the capital expenditure plan seems inevitable. Budget planning and consultation will take place soon.  One of the key issues will be what happens to Council Taxat a time when many residents will be strapped for cash as a result of unemployment resulting from the economic downturn.

 

EXTRACT FROM THE AUDITOR'S REPORT

2019/20 Financial Return

 

In a year where March saw the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council has performed well to achieve a breakeven position for its service area budgets. The Council responded to the pandemic situation quickly, making critical decisions in response to constantly moving government guidance. With only 2 weeks remaining of the 2019/20 financial year with the outbreak of the pandemic, impact on the financial outturn was minimised for 2019/20 but will be a larger impact on 2020/21.

 

The outturn for 2019/20 highlights the effective management action taken to address the pressures throughout the year. The £1.5m overspend in Children and Young Persons (CYP) (in part offset by contingency funds within CYP reserves) and £0.6m overspend in Community Well Being were offset by underspends within Regeneration and Environment.

 

The use of CYP earmarked reserves illustrates that the Council does have ongoing financial pressures which need to be addressed. However, this needs to be put in the context of income growth opportunities the Council’s reserves position. Brent has over £134.8m of usable reserves, excluding capital reserves, which can ultimately be deployed to address in-year shortfall. To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs. It is also worth noting that the Council is very clear about finding solutions in CYP going forwards.

 

The Council’s MTFS set in 2019/20 identified £11.4m savings required for 2020/21 and a best estimate budget gap of £20m for 2021/22-2022/23. In the November 2019 MTFS update a comprehensive review of technical budget assumptions took place, including a review of the 2020/21 savings plans and estimated savings of £4.28m to be delivered in 2021/22 and £1.77m to be delivered in 2022/23.

 

As a result of the pandemic it is expected that service departments will experience income and expenditure pressures in 2020/21. The magnitude of the pressures will depend on the severity and length of the pandemic. The Council has modelled the financial impact based on lockdown periods of 3 and 6 months and has a cost tracker to estimate and record the additional pressures relating to additional expenditure, loss of income, impact on savings and capital programmes, and treasury management issues. The Council estimates the 2019/20 impact to be £0.4m while for 2020/21, a 3-month lockdown period has an estimated lost income impact of £19.8m, with another £14.9m on top of that for a 6-month lockdown. The Council reports these figures to MHCLG fortnightly.

 

The net cost of Covid-19 to the Council is expected to be £47.6m (£42.7m of additional income and expenditure pressures and £4.9m of slippage in savings plans), which is far in excess of the £21.2m funding to be received from central government. The cost estimates are considerable, and the Council has been working to the assumption that costs will be fully reimbursed. Central government recently announced a new package of support which includes provision for some income losses to be reimbursed where losses are more than 5% of a council’s planned income from sales, fees and charges, with central government covering up to 75% of the remainder. Also, any deficits on council tax and business rates income will be allowed to be spread over 3 years rather than 1 year. Detailed workings of the scheme will be confirmed as central government drafts the statutory instrument that will effect the changes. This leaves the Council with an estimated gap of £26.4m before support for income losses is taken into account. If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

 

The Council has modelled indicative forecasts of the council tax base and business rates income going forward. Modelling is challenging for the Council given that the Council receives c£50m (approx. 40% of net rates payable) of additional relief from central government to further discount the bills of businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, as well as small businesses:

• the Council received c£64m from central government to provide grants (between £10k-£25k) to support the above businesses; and

• all other business rate payers having difficulty in paying were offered payment deferrals in line with central government guidance.

Due to the above, the amount of NDR income collected to date compared to budget has changed significantly, and forecasting future collection is dependent on how long different business sectors take to recover, if at all. The Council has modelled business rates collection forecast for 2020/21 for the amounts collected and to be collected over a revised collection profile, against a reduced collectible debit, to support future business rates income projections. However, the amount of business rates the Council is allowed to retain is largely dependent on the future business rates regime and the amount of section 31 grant for certain business sectors. Also, the Council is part of the London business rates pool in 2020/21. London Councils will be modelling the potential impact of a deficit on the pool and individual boroughs and the results are expected later in the year. This exercise along with other intelligence and data gathering exercises on collection rates will be critical to better understand the potential impact on the 2020/21 budget and future budget assumptions for business rates income.

 

Over the past 2 years, the Council has been addressing historic overspends and undertook a comprehensive review of demographic pressures and other expenditure pressures, ensuring the Council could move to a more sustainable financial position. Following the Covid-19 outbreak the Council’s financial position has changed significantly. The impact of the loss of fees and charges, and emergency costs have had an immediate effect on all local authorities. In the longer term there is likely to be further squeeze on public spending, which could impact future funding settlement allocations.

 

The 2020/21 budget agreed in February 2020 included savings of £7.4m to deliver a balanced budget. Analysis shows that £0.3m of the planned savings are at risk of not being delivered at all, £2.5m of the planned savings have already been delivered, and £4.6m of the planned savings will not be delivered in 2020/21 (the Council will look to make these savings in 2021/22 instead). The 2020/21 budget also agreed business plans which included savings of £4.3m. Along with review and tracking of Covid-19 cost pressures, the savings position is being monitored daily and monthly monitoring reports and forecasts are reported to the Departmental Management Team. At this stage, all indications are that the 2021/22 savings (including the £4.6m of planned savings for 2019/20) will be achieved. Looking ahead, the savings forecasts will be reported quarterly and challenged and CMT and Cabinet, as well as the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. As well as reporting progress of savings delivery the update reports will include mitigating actions or other interventions if there are delays in implementation or risk of delivery.

 

Proposed budget setting for 2021/22

 

Based on information available to date, the Council estimates that ongoing and recurring pressures will be in the region of £11m to £29m from 2021/22 across all service areas and council tax collection. At this stage, the estimates excludes future losses on business rates whilst further modelling is undertaken. Therefore, without additional funding or relives from central government the budget gap is likely to increase further. The Council’s estimates will be refined over the summer and are a major factor in the construction of the 2021/22 budget. Robust and credible plans will need to be developed and agreed in February 2021 to deliver a legally required balanced budget. At this stage, it is not clear when the Spending Review will be announced, or what the LG Finance Settlement for Brent in 2021/22 will be. The lack of clarity means that the Council will need to continue to plan with little or no funding certainty over the medium term. The Council expects to need to take difficult decisions about which services to prioritise and protect, and which to reduce in order to continue to deliver affordable and sustainable budgets.

 

To close a gap of this magnitude and in a relatively short space of time there are 3 main options:

 

• Further savings – options are limited given the current savings programme already includes a significant number of efficiencies and new income generation options are likely to be limited.

• Reduce growth assumptions – the current MTFS includes £13m of annual growth but there is a risk that reducing growth assumptions will store up pressures in future years.

• Scale back the capital programme – pausing or stopping specific capital schemes funded by borrowing would free up corporate revenue budgets set aside to provide capital financing.

 

A further consideration is if central government introduces new interventions specifically for long term Covid-19 related pressures, such as a multi-year minimum funding guarantee to compensate local authorities for income losses beyond their control. Another option may be to allow the capitalisation of losses, which would ultimately be funded by increased borrowing. The options will be further examined to ensure their consequences are properly understood and set out for members and the outcome of the review will be presented to Cabinet as part of the draft 2021/22 budget in October 2020.

 

The Council continues to maintain reserve levels much above those of its peers, but it is recognised that of the £398.4m total usable reserves and capital receipts reserve, £249.3m relates to reserves built up to help to finance the Council’s £1bn capital expenditure plans. 

 

Excluding the capital reserves, HRA and schools’ reserves leaves general fund reserves of £134.8m, which is close to the average level of reserves for London boroughs. However, the Council must carefully consider the use of its reserves to support revenue shortfalls as it is a non-recurrent source of funding, and use of reserves on a large-scale risks creating structural overspends if the Council’s finances do not recover quickly and income is reduced long term. 

 

From an audit point of view, the Council has managed its revenue reserves in a way that makes it better placed than most London councils to survive the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic from a financial perspective. This prudent approach to reserves must be continued to address the risk of future pandemics, recessions and other issues or events that may impact on the Council’s financial sustainability.

 

 

Brent Council to approve 'biggest financial transaction for a generation'

The Brent Audit and Standards Committee LINK will tonight consider a paper going to Cabinet in September LINK which would give the go ahead for the Council to borrow c£230,000,000 to fully meet its commitments on its already approved£800m capital investment programme.

The paper sets out detailed  borrowing options that balance risk and cost of borrowing. The amount required in 2019-20 is £62.4m and 2020/21 £166.6m.

As indicated in the diagram above the Council can only meet day to day costs from its Revenue account so the investment programme is aimed at 'invest to save' by for example buying housing and using revenue from rents to meet day to day costs of providing services.

Cemetery asbestos exposure being dealt with 'seriously and properly' by Brent Council

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, has responded to Clrr Duffy's call for an independent investigation into the asbestos waste exposure at Paddington Cemetery. LINK

Ms Downs wrote:

The letter to you from Chris Whyte intended to make clear that we will ask internal audit to undertake an initial investigation and that dependent upon their findings we will consider whether to pass the matter to an independent investigator, the police or any other relevant body or whether there is no evidence to support a claim of wrong doing. Pre-judging the outcome of this initial investigation, or any speculation at this stage about who is to blame, is not appropriate or helpful in my view. Internal audit will be able to pull together the relevant documentation, take a view on the matter and make recommendations. If we do proceed to an external review or some other action then this work will be very helpful to the third party involved at that point.

It is unfortunate that you believe residents will take the view that our colleagues in internal audit, who bring to bear their experience and specialist skills to investigate serious internal and external allegations all the time, which in appropriate cases have resulted in many successful prosecutions, would engage themselves in a “cover up”. I disagree. I am very clear that they will investigate this matter properly and thoroughly and this is entirely the right way for the Council to proceed. Even though any proposed follow [up] action which is an executive function will need to be formally reported to Cabinet, reports from internal audit are within the remit of the Audit Advisory Committee which reports to the Council and not the Cabinet. I do hope that you will feel reassured and able to make clear to any residents that the matter is being dealt with seriously and properly by the Council.

Please also note that the attached report is in the public domain already which covers the health risks related to this serious matter. LINK

Rest assured that the council already has been and will continue to be open and transparent about this matter and is mindful of the need to ensure appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

Public excluded from yet another key Brent Council discussion

The KPMG auditor is still investigating  objections to Brent Council's 2015-16 accounts by six local residents over the payment to former Director of HR Cara Davani LINK  and PcW has issued a 'limited assurance' verdict on Brent's Planning procedures LINK and drawn attention to potential for fraud.

Given that context there is  surely public interest in Brent's interal audit and investigation arrangements but the public have been  excluded from hearing consideration of these matters at the next meeting of the General Purposes Committee on January 30th.

The General Purposes Committee has hithertoo been made up of members of the Brent Cabinet, plus one opposition member, an arrangement that has itself drawn criticism.  The agenda item on the Council's website today still includes Cllr Mashari rather than her successor Cllr Tom Miller. Cllr Reg Colwill is the opposition member. Any change of membership will  have to be approved by Full Council at the January 23rd Meeting.

Fraud & error risk in Brent Planning Application process found by auditors

An internal audit report into Brent Council's planning application process by PriceWaterhouseCooper (PcW) has given only a 'Limited Assurance' rating and identified  high and medium risks of error or fraud. The report LINK which was submitted in November 2016 will be discussed at the Audit Committee on Wednesday January 11th 7pm at Brent Civic Centre.

In the last year there have been major staff changes in the Planning Department. Both planning and regeneration come under the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment.  Recently the lead member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, which also covers planning policy,  Cllr Roxanne Mashari, resigned from the Cabinet earlier this month to be replaced by Cllr Shama Tatler.

The summary states: (my emphasis highlighted in yellow)

A new management team has been in place since May 2016 and there was evidence of some improvement being made to the system of controls within the planning application assessment process. However, our review did identify significant weaknesses in the planning application review and assessment process due to issues in the design of automated and user access controls with the system used to process planning applications, Acolaid. Issues identified around the system audit trail, user access rights and system enforced controls in place mean that the system is highly susceptible to manipulation and abuse through inappropriate or fraudulent activity and action should be taken immediately by management to strengthen the controls embedded within the system. We have included on page 4 a summary process map identifying the key weaknesses within the overall control system. 

Based on the findings identified by this review we are only able to give Limited Assurance over how the risks covered by this review are being mitigated. Key findings

•       The audit trail supporting the completion of key planning tasks is driven by the user selection from a drop down field that any user can amend rather than being automatically recorded based on the username within the system who has actually processed the task. The audit trail, including evidence of key approvals in the planning application process, may not accurately reflect who has actually performed the task and could be susceptible to manipulation to hide inappropriate activity. 


•       The system does not enforce segregation of duties between key parts of the planning process such as the initial assessment of the application by a Planning Officer and the subsequent approval by a Planning Manager. 


•       Roles and responsibilities are not fully aligned to access rights within the system. There are 9 levels of user access rights in the Acolaid system. Those responsible for granting/amending access rights were not able to define what access rights these user profiles permitted. 


•       Acolaid system user access rights have not been regularly reviewed by management. There are 739 user IDs listed on the Acolaid system. 429 (58%) users had not used the system since 30/3/2016 at the time of audit (01/08/2016) consisting of staff that have left the Council or who no longer require access to Acolaid. There is no effective mechanism in place to identify users who have left the Council or no longer require access to the system and withdraw access rights accordingly. 


•       There is no evidence an anti-bribery risk assessment has been completed for the Planning Department and anti-bribery awareness training has not been provided to planning staff. The Council may not be able to demonstrate that it has taken steps to prevent bribery resulting in non-compliance with the Bribery Act 2010 which could result in reputational damage and prosecution under this legislation. 


•       The Council officers a pre-application advice service in relation to prospective planning applicants. Advice issued should be subject to review in advance of being issued. 7/101 (7%) of pre-applications had been processed and reviewed by the same person. 


Given the  multi-million value of planning applications in Brent and the fact that for several years now, as pointed out on this blog, major decisions are delegated to the head of planning, this is an area of obvious concern.   As with any Audit Report an action plan has been devised for each area of concern but councillors will need  to step up their scrutiny of the internal working of their own department to ensure it is fit for purpose.

An immediate question that springs to mind is whether, historically, any fraud may have taken place or major errors made?  Are any investigations planned into past planning application decisions in the light of this report? 

The report states:

Planning Officers are bound by the Royal Town Planning Institute's Code of Conduct, which includes competence, honesty and integrity as key principles. However, this does not include any specific requirements regarding anti- bribery. We reviewed the Council's Anti-Fraud and Bribery Policy and found:

•   The Council has committed to maintain adequate and proportionate procedures to prevent bribery, undertake anti-bribery risk assessments and make all employees aware of their responsibilities to adhere strictly to this policy at all times; 


•   An anti-bribery risk assessment for the planning applications process and anti-bribery awareness training has not been provided to staff; 


•   A planning code of conduct is in place for members, however this does not include provisions relating to officers. We note that the code of conduct is currently being redrafted to include officers; and 
Planning Officers are required to flag any potential conflicts of interest in processing planning applications on an ad-hoc basis, but there is no requirement to make formal written declarations and a register of interests is not maintained.

These are the risk assessment findings:

HIGH RISK Approval of planning applications: System-audit trail and workflow

The Acolaid system does not accurately record the allocation and completion of work and the audit trail is susceptible to manipulation. In addition the system does not enforce segregation of duties for key parts of the process and system access rights do not reflect roles and responsibilities. As a result planning applications may be approved without the prerequisite review and approval in line with roles and responsibilities in place. This could result in planning applications being approved inappropriately due to fraud or error. 


HIGH RISK Acolaid System use access

System access rights do not reflect current roles and responsibilities. Individuals who do not require access to the system or have left the Council have access to the system and are able to make inappropriate changes to records and standing data due to fraud or error. 

MEDIUM RISK Anti-bribery arrangements

The Council is not able to demonstrate that it has taken steps to prevent bribery resulting in non-compliance with the Bribery Act 2010 which could result in reputational damage and prosecution. 
Inappropriate decisions are made regarding proposed planning applications due to bribery and undue influence. 


MEDIUM RISK Pre-application advice

Insufficient segregation of duties and independent review of pre-application advice may result in poor quality advice not being identified and resolved or inappropriate advice being issued based on the scope of services that can be provided at the pre-application stage. 


MEDIUM RISK Management Information Control design

There is insufficient performance information available to management to facilitate effective oversight of operational performance. Operational issues are not identified and resolved in a timely manner.

Brent Council External Audit certificate delayed while objections to accounts are investigated

The report of the external auditors, KPMG, is tabled for the Brent Council Audit Commitee on Thursday September 22nd, 7pm, Brent Civic Centre.

KPMG note on page 9 LINK:

In order for us to issue an audit certificate, we are required to have completed all our responsibilities relating to the financial year. We are not in a position to issue our audit certificate with the audit opinion as we have received six objections to the accounts from local electors.

We are currently in the process of considering these objections and assess the work we need to fulfil our statutory duties.

It is likely that some of these objection relate to the Council's £157,610 pay-off to ex-head of Brent Human Resources, Cara Davani. The auditor was asked to make a public interest report under Section 24 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act on the payment LINK:

This is the submission by Cllr John Warren:

I seek your consideration of a public interest report in respect of the Accounts of the L.B.of Brent for 2015/2016...........

1. I am on the electoral register in the Brondesbury Park  Ward in HBP4.

2.” Why you are objecting and facts on which you rely.”

I am objecting that you have not issued a report on what I shall refer to as the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga .”.......and put forward the following....

(a) L.B.Brent has suffered a significant financial loss due to mismanagement,incompetence,and decision - making at the highest level that fail totally to pass ANY test of “ reasonableness.”
(b) The cumulative cost of this saga totals in excess of £1 m. for 2014/2015 and 2015/2016.
(c) There is considerable interest in this saga from Brent residents.
(d) As admitted by L.B. of Brent, here has been considerable reputational damage to the Council as a result of this saga.

3. “ Details of any matter you think the external auditor should make a public interest report about .”.......

(a) The saga as referred to above with specific reference to .....

•          did the personal relationship between Christine Gilbert ,former Chief Executive ,and Cara Davani have any effect on the decision - making  in this saga?
•          did the fact that  the two afore-  mentioned individuals had previously worked together at both Ofsted and L.B. of Tower Hamlets play any part in the decision - making in this saga?
•          was it ,in  any way possible, “ reasonable “ for Ms Gilbert NOT to  initiate a disciplinary process against M/ s Davani in the light of the brutal judgement and comments by the Judge in the  Employment Tribunal case  at Watford - 3302741/2013?
•          did “ unreasonable “ decision - making in this saga mean that Brent Council should never have been placed in the position of having to agree an exit payment to M/ s Davani of £157,610 - as per 2015/16 accounts?
•          was it a proper use of public monies for L.B.of Brent to pay the costs/ damages awarded personally - as a defendant- against M/ Davani?

4. “ What you would like the external auditor to do ?”

I should like you to issue a public interest report on the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision - making in the “ Rosemarie Clarke saga. “..... because of the significant cost in money terms, Council reputational damage  and Brent  staff- relations ....
•          was it reasonable to take disciplinary action in the first place against Ms Clarke?
•          was it reasonable to appeal the Tribunal verdict in the light of the Judge’ s comment that “ Brent had no reasonable prospect of success ?”
•          was it reasonable not to take disciplinary action against Ms Davani in the light of the Tribunal judgement?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to pay all Ms Davani ‘ legal costs and damages personally awarded against her?
•          was it reasonable for Brent to make the exit payment of £157,610 to Ms Davani?

Brent Conservatives: 'Curioser and curioser'

Committee allocation

'Curioser and Curioser' may well be Alice in Wonderland's reaction to the situation of Conservative councillors in Brent. To recap, there are two groups of Brent Conservatives" The 'Conservative Group' of Kenton councillors led by Cllr Kansargra and the 'Brent Conservative Group' led by Cllr Warren. There are three members in each.

The two groups tussled for recognition by the Labour Group which resulted in mutual recrimination and Warren characterising the Kenton members as Labour dupes.

Now an Officer's Report LINK going to Full Council on September 7th reveals that Brent Conservative Group are not taking up their positions on the Audit Committee, Standards Committee and Corporate Parenting Committee.

Following the last meeting of Full Council, the Head of Executive and Member Services notified the Leader of the Brent Conservative Group, in writing, of the opportunity to nominate a Member of the Group to the remaining seats the Group had been allocated by 15 July 2015.

In response, the Group leader expressed two wishes: “1. Not to appoint from my group to our allocated committees, 2. To appoint from outside my group.” 

Having been advised that only members of the Brent Conservative Group can be nominated, the Group further expressed the wish that, apart from the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Committee, the seats on the committees remain vacant. 


One might think that given this stance the seats could be offered to the Conservative Group or the lone Liberal Democrat councillor but the officer's report states:

According to the 1990 Regulations, if a political group has failed to express its wishes in relation to the appointment of a committee seat within a period of three weeks, “the authority......may make such appointment to that seat as they think fit.” 


Full Council’s default power is therefore discretionary: the outstanding appointments “may” be made but there is no requirement to do so. Further, the power to appoint has to be interpreted in its statutory context and, in particular, the requirement for political balance. Members are advised that where a political group has been allocated a seat on a committee, Full Council can exercise its power of appointment to that seat only by appointing a member of the political group in question. Accordingly, only a Member of the Brent Conservative Group may be appointed to the seat allocated to it on the Audit, Standards and Corporate Parenting Committees. 


With Brent an almost de facto 'one party' council it appears to be an abdication of responsibility for the Brent Conservative Group (as much as I disagree with their policies) to refuse to take up positions on the committees. This is particularly so in relation to Audit and Standards where there are current concerns relating to the conduct of officers and members in the Cara Davani case (subject of a Brent Conservative Group motion at Full Council LINK). Corporate Parenting LINK is of crucial importance as it oversees the Council's responsibilities for the well-being of children in its care and those leaving care.

The report also puts forward the possibility of the appointment of Cllr Dr Helen Carr  (Lib Dem) to the Health and Well-being Board subject to approval of a constitutional amendment tabled at the same meeting.