Agenda item
Questions from the Opposition and other Non-Cabinet Members
Questions to be put to members of the Cabinet in accordance with standing order 40.
Minutes:
Councillor Carr asked what the case was for retaining the positions of Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Councillor Butt replied that the Mayor performed a civic duty chairing meetings of the Council and was first citizen of the borough, along with the deputy attending over 500 functions, raising money for charity and promoting the borough. The position was enshrined in legislation and he commented that the past Liberal Democrat/Conservative Administration had not removed the position during its four year term. Councillor Butt added that some savings had been made in the running of the Mayor’s office.
Councillor Colaccico asked if the aspiration to reopen the Dudden Hill freight line across Brent, for passenger trains from Old Oak Common, via Harlesden, Neasden and Gladstone Park to a new Thameslink station at Brent Cross could be renewed? She added that the modest number of existing freight trains could share the route with a four-trains-per-hour London Overground service, which had already been proposed by the London Mayor. The new service would provide a much needed orbital route for Brent, reducing car journeys from the new Brent Cross development and linking Jubilee and Bakerloo lines. Councillor Colaccico asked if the Council was lobbying Barnet Council to insist on space for London Overground platforms on the existing freight lines at any future Brent Cross Thameslink station. Councillor Southwood replied that she could re-assure Councillor Colaccico that use of the Dudden Hill line was part of the Council’s vision and Barnet’s support for this had been sought although there had not been a response on the proposals for any new station. Councillor Southwood accepted the point about passenger and freight being able to share the line and was prepared to restate the Council’s position to Barnet Council.
Councillor Davidson referred to two recent government announcements that he felt were very good news for Brent residents:
- police budgets were now protected across London, including a 30% increase in counter-terrorism funding, and
- London Mayoral candidate, Zac Goldsmith, had delivered a £2.5bn London Housing Deal, doubling support for Help to Buy, massively expanding shared ownership, and guaranteeing two new affordable homes for every high value home sold. He stated that thousands of Brent residents would now have the opportunity to get onto the housing ladder. Councillor Davidson asked if there would be an apology to Brent residents for both the reckless scaremongering on police numbers and the Administration's inaction on housing. Councillor Butt replied that he would not be apologising given the cuts to police numbers, the further cuts still to be implemented and having just heard from the Harlesden Safer Neighbourhood Team that their resources were stretched beyond the limit. He stated that the residents of Brent were losing out as a consequence of the government’s actions. Referring to the housing position, Councillor Butt asked how local people would be able to afford the new housing being promised and that only a Labour administration would deliver the social housing needed.
Councillor Harrison expressed concern over the government’s continuous attacks on social and affordable housing which included:
- the forced sale of council homes,
- the forced sale of housing association homes,
- penalising tenants who earn too much,
- penalising tenants who earn too little through the benefits cap,
- penalising tenants when a child leaves home through the ‘bedroom tax’, and
- the uprating of what qualifies as ‘affordable’ – now at £450,000.
She asked what the impact would be of the government’s latest announcements on housing for tenants, especially with regard to Old Oak Common and Park Royal. Councillor McLennan replied that she was concerned about the impact these measures would have on local residents. She stated that assistance for starter homes was a good thing but that the government’s view on what this meant was far removed from the Council’s view. With average income in the borough of £32,000, down to £21,000 in some areas, people would not be able to afford homes at £450,000. She added that the government did not have any other options and so the Council was taking the initiative by building new homes itself.
Councillor Hylton stated that one in four people in the UK experienced mental health problems in a year, yet the government had no joined up plan. Whilst NHS funding was protected, local authority programmes were threatened by cuts. Meanwhile, the move from disability living allowance to personal independence payments had led to a cut in support to those who could have lived independently. For some this could result in a worsening of conditions leading to a need for medical help. She asked what the Council was doing for people with mental health conditions, given the chaotic state of government policy and how appropriate, less draconian employment support was provided. Councillor Hirani acknowledged the importance of this issue and referred to ‘The Time to Change’ pledge adopted by the Council. He stated that a key performance target for the Council was to do better than the national average for getting people with secondary mental health needs into work but that more needed to be done to support those with lesser mental heath needs. The Council had joined The Mental Health Challenge and was raising awareness of the issues.
Councillor Kelcher asked what support would be offered to parents at Furness Primary School in Kensal Green ward, as they battled the head teacher’s plans to convert the school to an Academy. Councillor Moher replied that the Council had already indicated that it would prefer to see the school remain as it was. She stated that she was willing to meet with parents to explain the current position. She noted that the consultation meetings had not been well attended but understood that the governors had submitted the application so unless they were willing to withdraw it, it was likely the school would become an Academy if the application was approved.
Councillor Maurice referred to the Civic Centre being designed so that people visiting it would use public transport as a more environmentally friendly option. This was based on the anticipation that the major bus routes would be diverted to pass in the vicinity of the Civic Centre. However, over two years later and there had been no change to the bus network except for two local routes. Councillor Maurice asserted that this was one of the reasons why the Library at the Civic Centre was underused. Although the bus network was managed by TfL he submitted that arrangements should have been made before the Civic Centre was opened or very soon afterwards. Councillor Maurice asked what was now being done to make the Civic Centre more accessible for people to attend by public transport. Councillor Southwood replied that firstly she needed to correct the claim that the library was underused when it was in fact the third most used public library in the UK. She added that TfL did not feel the need to provide additional buses to serve the Civic Centre and pointed to existing buses allowing access to the Civic Centre via Lakeside Way. Nevertheless the Council would continue to lobby for improvements to local public transport options and Councillor Southwood stated she would welcome the support of the opposition groups on this.
Councillor Stopp asked what the council was doing to protect its employees rights as they were being attacked by the government. Councillor Pavey replied that he agreed that the rights of employees were being threatened. He regarded the Trade Union Bill as a malicious attack on working people. He stated that the Council would not use the powers proposed in the Bill to break strikes but would look to senior management to manage staffing situations. The Council wanted its workforce to reflect the local community and as a result of his review, a comprehensive package of support was being provided to promote equality in the workplace.
Councillor Tatler referred to the recent OFSTED inspection which highlighted improvements in children's services particularly in areas like adoption. She asked if this could be expanded upon by outlining what the inspection found, how the department would continue to make improvements in children's services and possible challenges it faced. Councillor Moher replied that she hoped members would read the inspector’s report which presented an improved outcome from the previous inspection. The inspectors had agreed with the Council’s self assessment and had commented favourably on some aspects of work. They found the Council was set on the right course for further improvement. However the need to restructure the department would present the challenge associated with losing experienced senior managers and continued efforts were needed to recruit social workers.