Agenda item
Question time
In accordance with Standing Order 39, up to ten questions selected by the Leaders of the three main political groups will be followed with supplementary questions to the Executive.
A copy of the selected questions and the answers where possible will be separately circulated to all members.
Minutes:
The selected questions submitted under the provisions of standing order 38 had been circulated together with written responses from the respective Lead Members. The Members who had put the questions were invited to ask their supplementary questions.
The following five questions had been selected by the Leader of the Labour Group.
Dedicated Schools Grant
The question from Councillor Arnold had asked what the percentage increase in the Dedicated Schools Budget for Brent schools had been in each year since 2006/7 and how this compared with other local authorities. Councillor Arnold referred to the answer she had received which she stated confirmed the exceptionally high investment that had gone into schools and congratulated the schools on their efforts to raise standards and attainment each year. She added that the expectation now was for careful resourcing and planning in the provision of education throughout the borough to ensure an even distribution. However, she felt there was no clear plan in place and the promised new primary schools in Stonebridge and Kilburn had not materialised. As a supplementary question, Councillor Arnold asked what resources were being invested in the underperforming Schools Places Strategy Team so that it was fit to achieve necessary analysis and forward planning to keep headteachers and ECM (Every Child Matters) stakeholders involved and to make sure there was a modern school place for every child in the borough.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) expressed confusion over the question. He stated that the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) was to meet the existing costs of providing education and although this had been increased there was included in this a degree of catch up with other London boroughs. With the rising primary school age population it was forecast that there needed to be an extra 11 forms of entry amounting to £40-50M cost which could not be drawn from the DSG. The current allocation of resources by the Government came nowhere near to the level of investment needed to deal with the rising primary school population and many other boroughs faced a similar problem.
Staff redundancy
The question from Councillor Fox had asked how many members of staff had been made redundant or had been informed that they were to be made redundant over the past three months. He felt that the answer he had received did not include reference to the responsibility the Executive was taking on this matter. As a supplementary question he asked what approvals, comments or instructions had come from the Executive regarding the very serious and council wide programme of cuts and redundancies and when councillors and the public would be able to read the very expensive Pricewaterhouse Coopers report on the council.
Councillor Sneddon (Lead Member for Human Resources & Diversity and Local Democracy & Consultation) responded by making clear that his answer did answer the question. He stated that the Executive was taking responsibility for transforming the way the council worked through the improvement and efficiency agenda to ensure Council Tax paying residents received a better service. He submitted that it was not for the Executive to issue instructions on individual staffing issues but it was its responsibility to lead the strategic direction of the Council.
Job losses
The question from Councillor John had asked if the impending loss of 300 jobs in the Council meant that the council had been grossly inefficient since 2006. Referring to the answer she had received, Councillor John pointed out that question time provided the opportunity for backbench members to ask questions of the Executive, not the other way round. She submitted that the Chief Executive’s September newsletter showed that the performance of the council had declined and as a supplementary question asked under whose watch had such a massive deterioration occurred.
Council Lorber (Leader) replied that the current Administration would be judged by the people of the borough at election time. Since 2006 there had been four by elections of which the Liberal Democrats had won three with the Labour Party not gaining one seat. In 2005 the Council conducted a residents’ satisfaction survey which showed a satisfaction rate of 48%. This year a similar survey had shown the rate increasing to 65%.
London Low Emission Zone
The question from Councillor Powney had asked what action would be taken to reduce emissions within Brent’s most polluted areas. In referring to the answer he had received he asked if it represented the views of both parties in the Administration or just the Lead Member’s. Councillor Powney referred to proposals to demolish a number of properties along the North Circular Road because of the pollution suffered by the people currently living in them. Again referring to the answer he had received, Councillor Powney wondered how a Brent Local Emissions Zone could be rejected if the benefits and disadvantages had not been assessed. As a supplementary question, Councillor Powney asked if the Administration would commit to assessing the benefits and disadvantages of a Brent-specific Low Emissions Zone before making a final decision and when such an assessment would be completed.
Councillor Van Colle (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) confirmed that in answering the question he did so on behalf of the Executive. He stated that it first had to be recognised that Brent was positioned in the middle of other boroughs with high pollution rates and so any local initiative would be affected by this. Although the proposal could be looked into the Council could not commit to any growth proposals at the present time because of the tight financial situation brought about by the actions of the present Government. He stated that if resources were made available then it would be considered.
Future of the ALMO
The question from Councillor Thomas had asked if consideration was being given to bringing the ALMO back in-house. As a supplementary question he asked if, given the present management agreement would run out in 2012 and with long term viability in mind, would it be possible to extend the management agreement with possible break clauses. Brent Housing Partnership had now acquired GNH (Grenville New Homes) with a 30 year business plan making it the only ALMO tied into long term financial arrangements such as this. He felt such an extension would send the right indications to potential backers.
Councillor Allie (Lead Member for Housing and Customer Services) replied to the supplementary question by saying no.
The following three questions had been selected by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.
Outcome of Residents’ Attitude Survey
The question from Councillor Castle has asked if the results of the recent Residents’ Attitude Survey vindicated the Administration’s approach to value for money. He asked as a supplementary question if a much greater satisfaction with basic Council services, delivered in a value for money way was what residents valued most. He also asked for assurance that the Leadership would not waiver from seeking greater efficiency gains, if these resulted in smarter working and more money to protect and improve frontline services.
Councillor Lorber (Leader) replied that the results of the survey were a clear indication of the loss of support for the Labour Party and the views of the residents of Brent showed they supported cleaner streets and better services.
Proposals for a third pool
The question from Councillor V Brown had asked for an update on proposals for a third pool in Brent. As a supplementary question Councillor Brown asked for an assurance that, in line with making sports more available as part of keeping in good health, the Administration would pay close attention to value for money so that residents would not be priced out of any facility.
Councillor Van Colle (Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture) replied that the Council was doing something the previous Administration had failed to do by planning to add an additional pool to the services provided in the borough. By identifying a site in Roe Green Park the Council was ready to respond as soon as financial support was identified. No commitment could be given on a charging structure at the present time but Councillor Van Colle stated that the Council would make sure it was built to value for money standards and in a way that most residents would be able to afford.
Street based cleaning
The question from Councillor Green had asked how extra investment in street based cleaning had continued to benefit the residents of Brent. As a supplementary question, Councillor Green asked what exciting initiatives there were in maintaining the Council’s robust commitment to continuing to clean streets and recycle throughout the present troubling times.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Transport and Highways) remembered when rubbish littered the borough. He stated that recycling was up by 50% and was proud to report that an independent scoring on street cleaning had put it at 16% against a target of 19%. This was a massive improvement and added to this was the introduction of Green Zones.
The following two questions had
been selected by the Leader of the
Conservative Group.
Installation of road humps
The question from Councillor Mendoza had asked for confirmation of the process for the physical installation of road humps in the borough. In his absence, Councillor H B Patel added that in many cases the installation of traffic calming measures was a waste of money and referred to the scheme he had raised at an earlier Council meeting which had subsequently been changed. On behalf of Councillor Mendoza he asked as a supplementary question why following the installation of road humps they were not properly marked making them difficult to see. He asked for confirmation that in future the marking of road humps would be included as part of the scheme and given priority.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Transport and Highways) stated that the scheme referred to by Councillor Patel had been modified in light of comments received. As for the marking of road humps, he replied that he would ask officers to look into this matter. However, he added that it was not necessary to wait to ask a Council question before raising such a matter. Councillor Brown also stated that if drivers drove sensibly as they should always do they would avoid accidents.
Closure of Stag Lane Doctors’ practice
The question from Councillor Mistry had asked why residents were being forced to travel to Monks Park or Wembley following the closure of the Stag Lane Doctors practice for urgent repairs. She added that despite being told that Brent PCT were in discussions with the GPs the only dialogue had been a telephone call on 1st October saying they were closing the premises. Councillor Mistry expressed concern that this signalled the approach of more drastic cuts being made by NHS Brent. There did not appear any intention to consult local residents many of whom were patients at Stag Lane medical centre and she understood the Chief Executive of NHS Brent had no contact with the Director of Housing and Community Care on the subject. She asked as her supplementary question for assurances that the Stag Lane medical facilities would not be moved out of the Queensbury area to far away places such as Monks Park and Wembley, that residents would be consulted and that the views of the local GPs and the Stag Lane practice would be taken into account.
Councillor Colwill (Lead Member for Adults, Health and Social Care) replied that the Council and the PCT worked in partnership and as such the PCT should keep ward councillors informed of what was happening in their area. He stated that in this case efforts were being made to try to keep some medical facilities in the local area.