1 Morland Gardens – Brent should rethink whether contract is lawful

Guesr Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

1 Morland Gardens, June 2022.

 

Two weeks ago, in a guest post giving Brent Council’s response to me stating that the award of the latest contract for their Morland Gardens project was lawful, I mentioned that I had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. This was to obtain what should have been the supporting evidence for the views set out by Brent’s Legal Director.

 

For those of you interested in the way that Brent Council carries out its business on our behalf, and in the continuing saga of the Brent’s plans to demolish the locally listed Italianate Victorian villa, “Altamira” (above), this is the latest position.

 

I have received a full response to my FoI request from Brent Council, and will ask Martin to attach a copy of this at the end of this article. The rest of this post is the full text of an open email which I sent to Brent’s Legal Director on 18 August.

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Whether the 14 July 2022 decision to award the Morland Gardens contract breached the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (“PCR 2015”).

 

In your reply of 1 August, to my email on this subject of 18 July, you wrote:

 

‘I would confirm that reference in my previous email to Regulation 33(8) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015) was indeed to Regulation 33(8)(a) and that when inviting a single contractor to bid from the Network Homes Contractor Framework (Framework), the Council complied with its obligations under Part 2 of the PCR 2015 in accordance with Regulation 37(6)(c).’

 

Later in that email, you replied to my suggestion that the award had not complied with Regulation 18 of PCR 2015 (see below), writing: 

 

‘As it is considered that the direct award procedure set out in Schedule 1 of the Framework was used appropriately, it is not accepted that the award has been made with the intention of unduly favouring one economic operator.’

 

I have highlighted parts of the quoted replies above, and would ask you to reconsider them, in the light of the following information.

 

My response to your reply, also on 1 August, included a Freedom of Information Act request. I have now received the information requested, and attach a pdf copy of the Brent Council response, and the Direct Award Evaluation Process (“DAEP”) document which was supplied with it.

 

The DAEP document makes clear that there were ten contractors within Lot 3 of the Network Homes Contractor Framework (“NHCF”), all of whom would have met the Council’s requirements for being invited to tender for the contract, if it had been a competitive tender process. 

 

Of those ten contractors, seven were also contractors under the Notting Hill Genesis Framework (“NHGF”), which had been used for the previous two attempts to award a contract for the Morland Gardens Development. Those seven had been invited to tender for the previous contracts. But there were three contractors within Lot 3 of the NHCF who had never been invited to tender for this project.

 

In your email of 1 August you wrote that:

 

‘the other contractors on the framework did not have the resources available to meet the timescales the council required in order to meet the GLA grant funding requirement to be in contract and the project beginning in August 2022 and did not have the same level of knowledge and experience of, or relationship to the project site.’

 

I would refer you to question 4 of my FoI request, about contacts with the other contractors within Lot 3 of the NHCF, to find out whether they had the resources to meet the Council’s timescale. This was the answer:

 

‘As described in the Direct Award Evaluation Process attachment as part of the response to query no.3, no other contractors on the framework were contacted.’

 

The relevant sentence in the DAEP document is:

 

‘It should be noted that the other 9 suppliers on the framework were not checked for capacity (3.1.2), previous performance (3.1.3) and resource availability (3.1.4).’

 

Even if it were assumed that the other contractors on the NHGF, who had been given the opportunity to bid in the previous Morland Gardens tender processes, in 2020 and 2021, could be discounted, by failing to contact the other three NHCF Lot 3 contractors about whether they would be interested in bidding for the latest tender process, I believe that Brent Council has failed to treat those ‘economic operators equally and without discrimination’, as required by Regulation 18 (1).

 

I also believe that the answer to question 6 of my FoI request, about Brent Council’s contacts with Hill Partnerships Ltd over a possible contract award under the NHCF, shows there was a clear breach of Regulation 18(3). This was the answer:

 

‘The Council contacted Hill Partnerships Ltd via phone call during the week of 30 May 2022. They confirmed that they had available resources to start in August and that they continued to be interested in this scheme and would submit a bid should the Council issue a further invitation to tender. They confirmed the frameworks they were on so the Council could undertake its due diligence on the frameworks as a potential route to market.’

 

This confirms that Brent Council, having discovered that it had run out of time to award a Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd under the second NHGF tender process, set out to find a way to award a contract to them under a different framework. Having found out from this contractor which frameworks they were approved for, the Council’s ‘due diligence’ was to find a framework which allowed them to make a direct award of the new Morland Gardens contract to Hill Partnerships Ltd, and to make it quickly.

 

The procurement process, which Cabinet approved on 20 June, was designed ‘with the intention of unduly favouring’ one particular economic operator, Hill Partnerships Ltd.

I look forward to receiving your response to this open email, and to learning how Brent Council intends to deal with what appears to be an unlawful contract awarded for its Morland Gardens project. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Regulation 18 of PCR 2015:

‘Principles of procurement

18. (1) Contracting authorities shall treat economic operators equally and without discrimination and shall act in a transparent and proportionate manner.

(2) The design of the procurement shall not be made with the intention of excluding it from the scope of this Part or of artificially narrowing competition.

(3) For that purpose, competition shall be considered to be artificially narrowed where the design of the procurement is made with the intention of unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain economic operators.’

 

 

 

Good Law Project issues judicial review after contracting authority ‘unlawfully’ awarded £70bn public sector net zero procurement process

 Good Law Project  has filed a judicial review against contracting authority East of England Broadband Network (E2BN) after it handed over a £70 billion procurement process to a Cornwall-based ‘micro-company’ specialising in education services.

 

E2BN’s ‘Everything Net Zero’ is a framework agreement that offers the UK’s entire public sector, from the NHS to local government offices, a way to award contracts even loosely connected to ‘climate’ issues without having to comply with the usual rules about public procurement. Despite covering up to £70 billion, management of the framework agreement has been handed over to just one company  - a consultancy called Place Group, listed by Companies House as a ‘micro-company’ run by two directors in Penzance, Cornwall, with net assets of just under £350,000.

 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said:

 

The drive to achieve Net Zero is one of the most important challenges the UK faces today.  Why was E2BN, ‘a regional broadband consortium’, allowed to write such a poor example of a framework agreement and to make a decision that could have such a far-reaching impact on the UK’s climate response? Why did they decide to outsource control over billions of pounds in emissions reductions contracts to the Place Group, a tiny company whose main experience seems to be in the education sector?  Why was Place Group the only company to submit a tender? These are vital questions the public deserves to have an answer to and which E2BN has so far refused to answer.

 

Good Law Project is bringing this action as E2BN’s decisions and conduct in respect of the Everything Net Zero Framework appear to be in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. As it currently stands, it seems that billions of pounds worth of public contracts could be awarded by the Place Group to unspecified suppliers without open, transparent and fair competition. GLP has asked the Court to hold proceedings for a month to give E2BN another chance to provide proper answers.

 

In July, GLP along with Joanna Wheatley, Client Earth and Friends of the Earth successfully sued the Government over its strategy for delivering on its Net Zero targets, on the basis proposals were too vague and lacked enough detail.  GLP will continue to campaign for accountability and transparency where the Government’s approach to the climate crisis is concerned, including its procurement process.  

 

Show you are tackling climate change if you want a Brent Council contract

 Brent Council Press Release

Businesses will need to show how they are tackling climate change and working towards zero carbon emissions by 2030 when bidding for Brent Council contracts under new procurement rules introduced this week.

 

The council’s new Procurement Sustainability Policy aims to utilise Brent’s huge purchasing power by requiring potential new suppliers to demonstrate how they tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions and waste; minimising the use of resources; promoting the circular economy; improving air quality; and enhancing green spaces and biodiversity.

 

All applicable tenders will now include a sustainability assessment to identify how they will reduce Brent’s environmental impact and support sustainability commitments, which will form part of legally binding contracts awarded to successful bidders.

 

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, said: 

 

The council spends around £400 million every year on goods and services, so we have a great opportunity to use this spending power to make Brent greener and get closer to zero carbon emissions.

 

This is about us putting our money where our mouth is. Improving environmental sustainability through the suppliers we work with is essential if we are going reach the ambitious targets we have set ourselves. By working together, we can all make a difference, and create a greener borough for everyone.

 

The Procurement Sustainability Policy links into the council’s Procurement Strategy 2020-2023 priorities to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits for Brent.

 

•             Procurement Sustainability Policy

•             Procurement Strategy 2020-2023

Procurement to be brought back 'in house' after joint service fails to deliver the goods

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a proposal to bring procurement back in-house after a joint service with Harrow failed to deliver the envisaged benefits. A shared service with Harrow and Buckinghamshire was first discussed in January 2016 and at the time I noted the lack of clarity in the proposals LINK.  Officers claimed that a joint service would save Brent £272,000 in 2016-17.

Buckinghamshire dropped out and in  September 2016 Brent Tuped staff over to the joint Harrow-Brent  service followed by Brent Housing Partnership staff just over a year later in October 2017. Now less than 18 months after the first transfers they will be transferred back to Brent.

The Officers' report LINK recognise that this doesn't look good:

Reputational damage: To end the Shared Service so early into its life could potentially be seen as a failure by a range of stakeholders and potentially cause some reputational damage although this should be mitigated by getting member level approval for the dissolution.

The report suggests that the recent resignation of the Harrow Divisional Director of Procurement and Contracts gives an opportunity to review whether to continue the Shared Service and recognises that a decision to end it is best done before the arrangement between the two boroughs becomes more entwined and complex - a case of 'get out now before it's too late!'

The report states:

We are now just over 1 year into the Shared Service and a number of difficulties have been identified. At present Brent requires a level of service that is beyond the resourcing initially envisaged by the parties and available within the funds contributed to the Share Service following the restructure.

In addition it has proved difficult to recruit to many posts in the shared structure and continuity has been difficult to maintain. This has put additional pressure on the Shared Service and levels if service and satisfaction are therefore below what some service areas are expecting.

Reading beyond the mild civil service language it is clear that the joint service was just not paying people enough. Rather than the savings first envisaged it looks likely that costs will increase:

Despite a lengthy recruitment exercise, the ability of the Shared Service to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced staff into a number of vacancies has proved to be challenging. The poor recruitment results are thought to be in the main due to the salaries on offer being £5k below the market average together with a buoyant London jobs market for those individuals.

The regeneration/development area is significantly under-resourced. Although the Shared Service has flexed some resources to support this area. This is barely adequate and not sustainable in the long term. Consideration therefore needs to be given to interim resource(s) to support Capital projects (funded by the Capital programme) over and above the business as usual resourcing requirement.

The report states that for the Shared Serviced to meet these short-comings there would need to be a Head of Procurement dedicated to Brent and a rise of approximately £5k for each of the non-management grades totalling an additional annual contribution of £150,000.

The report is notably vague about the costs of leaving the Shared Service:

Should Brent leave the Shared Service the financial implications would need to be developed as the new organisational structure is designed. Initial  estimates however envisage that it would be of similar magnitude to remaining in the Shared Service.

Any increase in budget will have to be offset by a saving elsewhere in the department, the Council (sic) including greater achievement of procurement savings.

If the original proposal to enter a Shared Service lacked clarity then it appears that the proposal to leave has similar shortcomings, particularly on the financial implications. Can the Cabinet make a decision on the basis of this flawed report?

Brent out-sourced Dumping & Litter Patrols called-in for Scrutiny and some vital questions

Bath time at Randall Avenue, NW2

The Scrutiny Committee will consider the proposal for uniformed patrols to provide on the spot fines for environmental offences such as litter, dog fouling, fly-tipping, spitting, fly posting and graffiti at problem areas across Brent at its April 5^th meeting.

Although  the 12 month contract to  Kingdom Security was approved by Cabinet the proposal has come in for criticism on several grounds, the most important of which are:

·      The terms, pay and conditions of the people who will work on patrols, and their relationships to officers working on enforcement currently working in the Council
·      The lack of consideration of an in-house option
·      The process by which Kingdom was chosen as a partner for the trial period
·      Some of the costings contained in the report 

  The Kingdom Security Enforcement Officers would be paid £9.40 per hours for a 40 hour week which would include weekend and evening work. Working pay out at 52 weeks a year this comes to £19,552 for each operative plus extra if one is a foreman. The current Council Waste Enforcement Officers employed by the Council are on  £31,360-£33,660 a year. The former, despite being on slightly above the London Living Wage of £9.40 an hour, will be worse off than similar employees whose jobs have been cut , as well as well below  the rate (and working conditions etc) of the Council’s own employees.

The Council Officers to justify this on the grounds that the roles are different:

The Waste Enforcement roles attract a salary of Pay Scale PO1 (currently £31,368- £33,660); however, these directly employed officers undertake very different work. They use investigatory powers to administer enforcement cases through the formal process right up to and including representing the council in court, which accounts for the higher job evaluation outcome. 
The work that Kingdom is being asked to do is very much intended to complement and not replace the work of the existing in house team, who do not have the capacity, and are not equipped to carry out pro-active litter enforcement patrols. 


The Officers’  Report admits that no job evaluation has been done for the out-sourced workers so it is hard to see how a comparison can be made.

The failure to consider an in-house option is justified on the grounds that this is a 12 month pilot project and has less risk attached than if the operatives were directly employed by the Council.  They also rely on the claimed  positive experience of Ealing Council with Kingdom. 

However, this does not directly answer the general local government principle, which the Council enforces on schools for example, that three bids should be sought for contracts. This has not been done by the Council which instead went straight to Kingdom.

The costings assume the employment of 4 operatives issuing  5 Fixed Penalty Notices each per day for which the Council will pay Kingdon £46 per Notice.  Thus, as the FPNs will be for £80 each the sum is not equally shared between the Council and Kingdom. On the basis of 5,200 FPNs annually this gives Kingdom an income of £239,200. Equivalent to £60,000 per operative before wages and other costs - not a bad return. However, an additional report to Scrutiny Committee suggests that there will also be a supervisor and admin staff.

This is not the end of the matter however as it is assumed, based on the Ealing experience, that only 70% of the fines will be paid. Kingdom will receive £46 for 100% of the Notices but Brent Council £34 for only 70% pf them.  This gives a total income of 3,460 Notices (70% of total) x £80=£291,200.

Once Kingdom has been paid its £239,200 this leaves Brent with £52,000.

Scrutiny will need to consider whether this represents Best Value for residents, the issue of what will be done to recover the 30% of unpaid Notices, and whether an in-house solution will be considered after the 12 month pilot period and indeed what Kingdom's reaction will be to a move to in-house if they have successfully delivered the contract.

Scrutiny may also be interested in looking at the wider costs in the contract for Brent Council in terms of the support they are offering which presumably will come out f the £52,000, as well as what appears to be additional Kingdom staff (admin support and senior supervisory officer):
 

The typical responsibilities to be undertaken by both the council and by the contractor are set out below:


Brent:
·      Provide authorised officer identity cards to all Enforcement Officers working to the direction of Brent. 

·      Provide stationery and meet postage costs in respect of the service. 

·      Arrange for Enforcement Officers to be authorised to issue FPNs on behalf of 
Brent. 

·      Provide guidance as to areas to be patrolled and times of patrols. 

·      Provide workstations for administrative officers employed by the contractor 
(essentially, the Council will be required to provide an administrative base for Kingdom’s operatives at the Civic Centre. Such staff will attend on an ad-hoc basis, and such arrangements will be facilitated locally within the Environmental Services Department). Kingdom will be required to sign a licence covering any such ad hoc occupation as set out in paragraph 8.7. 

·      Manage and administer the appeals process


Contractor:
·      Issue FPNs to anyone caught committing an environmental offence. 

·      Provide fully trained, to Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) standard, 
Enforcement Officers, admin support and a senior officer for supervision. 

·      Provide uniform agreeable to Brent. 

·      Ensure Enforcement Officers carry out enquiries to ensure accurate identity 
details have been obtained from offenders before issue of FPNs. 

·      Provide statistical information and other reports, including equality monitoring.  
 Not issue an FPN to a person under the age of 18 or those suspected of suffering 
      mental ill health
In addition Brent Council is considering extending the contract. The viability of this seems doubtful given the amount of littering and fly-tipping in the borough:

Once established- and if successful, the scope of the contract may be expanded during the course of the pilot to incorporate other offences, such as:
·      Graffiti and Flyposting – Section 43 of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 

·      Dog Fouling – Section 3 Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1990 

·      Exposing vehicles for sale on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods 
and Environment Act 2005
·      Carrying out restricted works on a motor vehicle on a road - section 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
The Officer's report goes further to suggest other 'Added Value' benefits:
In addition to on-street enforcement, the contractor is also able to provide the following: 
·      ‘No cost’ provision of back office support and administration 

·      Trade waste and residential waste investigations 

·      Dealing with juvenile offenders and education through schools. 

·      Delivering a bolt on service aimed at investigating failures to recycle domestic 
waste correctly. 

·      Positive contribution to the reduction of street litter by intelligence-led patrols 

·      Working with the police to target other types of antisocial behaviour. 


The four enforcement officers (plus or including a senior officer) and admin support staff look as if they will be very busy.

Government 'shutdown of local democratic space' condemned

War on Want has issued the following statement regarding the  Newcastle City Council motion on local authority pennions and procurement policy:
 

War on Want welcomes the news that Newcastle City Council has voted to approve a motion opposing the government’s latest attack on local democracy.

The motion was passed unanimously, with full cross party support, at a recent council meeting. It is now official Newcastle City Council policy.

In November 2015, the government announced a proposal to block local councils from deciding how to invest their pension funds. Under the new plan, the government will have the power to veto investment decisions made locally on ethical grounds concerning human rights, arms trade, fossil fuels and much else.

Councillor Mick Bowman, North Heaton ward, said: 

This vindictive and ideologically motivated proposal, reminiscent of the­­­ notorious Clause 28 introduced by the Tories in 1988, is a blanket attempt to prevent local councils from having an ethical procurement and pensions investment policy.

Newcastle is a city with a proud commitment to human rights and many local councillors are active in social justice campaigns, including the movement for justice for Palestine, and we are determined to do whatever we can to block this proposal.

Ryvka Barnard, Senior Militarism and Security Campaigner at War on Want, said:

Newcastle City Council is fighting back, as are councils across the country, rightly concerned by the government’s attack on democracy and local decision making.

So much for George Osborne’s so called ‘devolution revolution’. The government’s action has consistently failed to match its rhetoric when it comes to localism and devolving power. This plan amounts to a shutdown of local democratic space and is a dangerous threat to the growing power of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to end UK complicity in Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights.

Over 10,000 people have responded to the government consultation, rejecting the proposal.
The ‘Protect Local Democracy’ campaign, initiated by War on Want, has been endorsed by a broad range of groups concerned with the human rights and environmental implications of the proposal. UNISON has also expressed concern that the proposal will deny pension scheme members their right to have their pension funds invested in their best interests.

Could Brent Labour follow Newcastle's lead on ethical procurement?

Brent Council during the apartheid era took action over severing links with companies that benefited from South African contracts.  More recently they declined to take similar action regarding the Public Realm contract with Veolia which at the time was providing infrastructure support to illegal settlements in Palestine.

Now the government is seeking to curtail the powers of local councils to have an ethical pesnions and procurement policy.

Newcastle City Labour Party has passed the following motion unanimously and expect to get it through Full Council.

I hope that Brent Labour group will take a similar stand.

Here is the motion which could easily be adapted for Brent:

Response to Government’s attack on a Councils’ right to follow an ethical policy in relation to procurement and Pensions Fund investments

Council notes with alarm the recent statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) confirming that new guidelines will be introduced early in the New Year which will curb councils’ powers to divest from or stop trading with organisations or countries they regard as unethical.

Council further notes that the new guidelines, which will amend Pensions and Procurement law, follow on from the government’s announcement made at the beginning of October 2015 that it was planning to introduce new rules to stop “politically motivated boycott and divestment campaigns” (Greg Clarke, Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government).

Council recognises that the focus of these new measures may be on procurement and investment policies and that they may have profound implications for Councils’ ethical investment policies more generally.

Newcastle City Council is proud of its’ commitment to human rights and to putting this into practice through such measures as an ethical approach to its relationship with business as outlined under  Newcastle’s Social Value Commitment.

Council believes that the proposed measures now being outlined by the DCLG will seriously undermine the Council’s ability to implement its commitment to ethical procurement and pensions investments.

Council also notes that the new guidelines represent a further, serious attack on local democracy and decision-making through a further restriction on councils’ powers. This is directly contrary to the government’s own stated commitment to the principle of localism, given a statutory basis by the Localism Act of 2011, which holds that local authorities are best able to do their job when they have genuine freedom to respond to what local people want, not what they are told to do by government.

Newcastle City Council therefore resolves to take all legal measures possible to oppose these new measures, including:

·      Writing to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to express Council’s unequivocal opposition to the proposed changes as part of the consultation

·      Working with any other local authority, the NECA, the LGA or other appropriate forums as well other partner organisations (such as local trade unions and community groups) who share these concerns to raise awareness of the implications of the proposed measures and to campaign against their introduction

Newcastle City Council reaffirms its commitment to an ethical basis to its procurement and pensions investment policy.

Brent Council doesn't know how many contracted out workers are on 'zero hours' contracts

With so many services out-sourced by Brent Council the issue of their workers' conditions of employment  is of major interest to council tax payers. Following a conversation with a Civic Centre security guard, who revealed that he was on a zero hours contract, I put a Freedom of Information request to the Council asking how many workers of organisations supplying out-sourced services to Brent Council were on such contracts.

Brent Labour councillors have voiced concerns about such contracts and the administration is committed to the London Living Wage. However, this means little if procurement procedures do not ensure that out-sourced workers enjoy proper contracts with sick pay, holiday pay and pension entitlement and at the LLW or above.

The Council, under immense financial pressure, can distance itself from poor employment conditions, by handing responsibility over to the private companies involved. However, if they have been pursuing best financial value as the main criterion for awarding contracts, they collude in insecure employment and low wages.

This is Brent Council's response to my Freedom of Information request  LINK  for information on  the number of Council employees and contractors supplying Council services on zero hours contracts:

Brent does not have employees on zero hour contracts but does utilise the
services of casual workers for specific activities.

We do not hold information on employment statuses within contracted
organisations.

My follow up request states:

I am afraid that this reply is not satisfactory. As the Council has been critical of 'zero hours' contracts and is committed to the London Living Wage I feel it is incumbent on the Council to ensure that workers in contracted organisations providing council services, enjoy the conditions that the Council advocates.

I therefore request that Brent Council follows up this request by ascertaining from contracted organisations:

1. The number and proportion of workers supplying Brent services paid the London Living Wage or higher.

2. The number and proportion of workers supplying Brent services on zero hours or casual contracts.

Brent Lib Dems protest at being gagged by Brent council officers

Press release from Brent Lib Dems:

 In an unprecedented move Brent councillors were on Monday (24 June) blocked from discussing a properly tabled motion put forward by Liberal Democrat councillors.

The motion, proposed by Willesden Green councillor Ann Hunter, sets out concerns about Veolia’s activities supporting Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory which are considered by the United Nations to violate international law. Veolia has a record of building and operating a tramway and bus services which discriminate against Palestinian residents.

Veolia is currently on the shortlist for Brent’s public realm contract. If successful the company will receive tens of millions of pounds to run waste and recycling, street cleaning, grounds maintenance and burial services on behalf of Brent Council and BHP.

The Liberal Democrats want the council to be able to take into account the record of companies which are involved in violations of human rights when deciding who to give business to.

Brent Council already takes a stance on ethical issues when procuring some supplies – for example it has decided to be a Fair Trade borough and encourage the purchase of fair trade goods. The Liberal Democrat group believes it is a logical extension of that principle that when buying services the council should be able to exclude companies who break international law or violate basic human rights.

Councillor Hunter said:

Earlier on Monday evening we honoured Nelson Mandela, a man with a great record of fighting discrimination, promoting truth and reconciliation, and an inspirational advocate  of freedom of speech. Mandela has always been utterly forthright in his condemnation of any system which divides people by race. That is what this man stands for and why we honour him.
 

In Brent we are proud to be a borough where residents from all different backgrounds live, work and travel together We are truly a rainbow borough.
 

Veolia shares in the building and running of services which Palestinian residents are not allowed to use. Just imagine if on our way into London we had to divide: Asians on one bus or tube, White British on another, Jews on another and Afro-Caribbean residents on another. 
 

Of course, here that would be illegal. We should not put local taxpayers’ money into the pockets of companies which act in this way.

Councillor Paul Lorber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group, added:

I am shocked that council officials intervened to prevent us even discussing this issue. It has been lawfully debated elsewhere. Councillors are elected to speak out for the residents of Brent. If the Labour party or council officers wanted to put forward a different view they should have had the guts to do so in open debate instead of trying to stifle the democratic process.