Brent's new Scrutiny Committee got off to a promising start yesterday evening when it approved an amendment to the minutes of the last Commiteee Meeting that has been requested by Philip Grant. Philip had been denied the opportunity to speak at that meeting, the last of the old Committee, because he would not agree to the condition that he should not mention the findings of the Employment Tribunal which found Brent Council and Cara Davani had racially discrimination against an employee, victimised her and constructively dismissed her.
Despite officer advice from Peter Goss that the amendment would unbalance the Minutes, being a paragraph long, the Committee voted to accept the amendment:
It is good to see the Committee acting independently as well as Philip Grant's persistence paying off.
Despite officer advice from Peter Goss that the amendment would unbalance the Minutes, being a paragraph long, the Committee voted to accept the amendment:
Minutes of Scrutiny Committee on 30 April 2015 – a proposed amendment to item 2.
a) The minute as it appears in the draft minutes published on the Brent Council website on 8 June 2015:-
The Chair advised that a request to speak had been received from Mr Grant with respect to the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review and draft Action Plan. The committee was informed that in line with advice provided by Brent’s Chief Legal Officer, it would not be appropriate to discuss an ongoing legal case. Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms. The committee subsequently agreed not to receive the deputation. Councillor Allie expressed the view that the deputation should be heard.
RESOLVED:
That permission to address the committee be not granted, in accordance with legal advice provided.
Delete the sentence:
‘Mr Grant advised that he would not be able to make his deputation under these terms.’ ... and replace it with:
‘Mr Grant advised that he could not accept the restriction which the Chief Legal Officer wished to impose, and went on to explain why. He said that Cllr. Pavey’s review had been set up to learn the lessons from that Employment Tribunal case, and one of the points he wished to make in his deputation was that an important lesson from it had not been learned. Reference to the case was also necessary to explain what he wished to say about the draft Action Plan, which Scrutiny Committee was being asked to give its views on. The case was relevant to the committee’s consideration of item 9 on its agenda, and could not be ignored. The Council lawyer present advised that the case was not fully concluded, so should not be referred to. Mr Grant responded that he would only be referring to findings of fact in the Tribunal’s Judgment of September 2014, which was not under appeal. Those findings were final, so he could not see how any reference to them would prejudice the position of any party to the remaining “remedy” hearing.’