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.
Agency staff
The question from Councillor Butt had asked how much agency/temporary staff/consultants were paid and how many were former Brent employees. Councillor Butt was not present to ask his supplementary question.
Council spend on communications
The question from Councillor Powney had asked how much the Council had spent on communications each year since 2005/06 and the number of communications staff employed. In the absence of Councillor Powney, Councillor Jones stated that the answer admitted that spending on publicity had gone up by 8% since 2005/06. She stated that this increase was in contrast to numerous pledges made by the Liberal Democrat Group and Councillor Lorber, when in opposition, that they would reduce the amount spent on communications. She asked, as a supplementary question on Councillor Powney’s behalf how it was planned to reduce communications spending in the future and if the answer could be believed.
Councillor Lorber (Leader) replied that his answer did not show the increase suggested and so he did not understand the nature of the supplementary question. Expenditure had either remained the same or was less.
Bonus payments in schools
The question from Councillor Arnold had asked what action the Council was taking to tackle the illegal payment of bonuses in schools. In the absence of Councillor Arnold, Councillor Jones stated that it was pleasing to hear that schools had reported that no bonuses had been paid in schools other than Copland Community College. On behalf of Councillor Arnold, Councillor Jones asked as a supplementary question what action was the Council taking to recover the illegal bonuses paid at Copland Community College given the deletion of the finance support posts in Children and Families.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that legal advice was being taken on what further action the Council could take.
Commemoration of Armed Forces Day
Councillor Beswick had asked why the Council had not commemorated Armed Forces Day 2009 and what plans it had to do so in the future. Councillor Beswick was not present to ask his supplementary question.
16-19 education and training
The question from Councillor Jones had asked how the Council had prepared for taking on the new responsibility for 16-19 education and training. Councillor Jones added that the Council was also going to have to manage the programme of capital investment for 16-19 learning. As a supplementary question, she asked what capital investment was necessary in schools to provide appropriate, engaging and high quality learning environments for the new 16-19 curriculum.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that as members were aware, a considerable amount of investment was needed in the Council’s secondary schools a lot of which it was hoped would be funded through the Building Schools for the Future programme and through the development of the CREST academies. The College of North West London also needed substantial investment following being let down by the Learning and Skills Council’s mismanagement of its capital programme. However, current information showed the capital programme to be severely constrained and so a way out of this situation could not be foreseen.
The following three questions had been selected by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.
Kingsbury Road traffic scheme
The question from Councillor Dunn had asked for an update on the success of the Kingsbury Road traffic scheme. Councillor Dunn added that there had been some scepticism about the scheme but this had turned out to be unfounded. The traffic calming measures were working and he congratulated the Lead Member on sticking with the scheme. Councillor Dunn asked was it not a shame that others did not see the sense of the proposals when they were first discussed.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Transport and Highways) replied that it was and that the scheme had made the road conditions safer.
Education achievement of Looked-After children
The question from Councillor Tancred had asked what measures the Council had taken to ensure its Looked-After children achieved their best potential. As a supplementary question, she asked how the Council’s performance compared with other councils and what was being done to ensure the improvements made were maintained.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that there were no figures available to allow comparisons with other councils but the Council’s performance was well ahead of the Government target and was among the best in London. He stated this was an incredible achievement by the Children and Families’ education team and foster carers. He assured Councillor Tancred that it was the intention to maintain and improve upon performance in the future.
Services in Brent
The question from Councillor Leaman had asked what the Leader and his Executive had done to make Brent a cleaner, greener and safer place. As a supplementary question, he asked if the Council had signed up to the 10:10 campaign and whether it was thought the Government was supporting recycling sufficiently.
Councillor Lorber (Leader) replied that the Executive had signed up to the 10:10 campaign, resolving to cut emissions by 2010. He added that the Council was doing all it could at a local level to encourage recycling but the Government was not doing enough. There was inadequate capacity in the country to recycle all the materials the Council would like to see recycled. In addition, the Council was not getting the return it deserved on the savings made by recycling and was losing £2-3M per year.
The following two questions had been selected by the Leader of the Conservative Group.
Request for CCTV in Hazel Road
The question from Councillor Joseph had asked if CCTV could be installed in Hazel Road. She asked if the Lead Member was aware of the suffering of residents in Hazel Road since the Dispersal Order in 2006 and that the hoodlums were now in hibernation but would be back next summer. She stated that the anti social team had not carried out any work in the area since then. As a supplementary question she asked again if it was not clear that permanent CCTV was needed in the area in order to identify perpetrators of crime.
Councillor Matthews (Lead Member for Crime Prevention and Public Safety) referred to her answer to the original question which explained how it was decided where resources were best allocated. She disputed the claim that the anti social team had not been active. It provided out-reach work, had undertaken work around 5 November activities, changed patrol times and was working with social housing providers in the area. Councillor Matthews advised that if residents experienced any further problems they should contact the anti social team.
Parking at the new civic centre
The question from Councillor Mendoza had asked what the anticipated number of staff and visitors to the new civic centre was and what the planned number of car parking spaces was. He referred to the answer he had received indicating that 158 car parking spaces were to be provided. He stated that thousands of people could be visiting the civic centre each day and felt such provision was unrealistic. He felt that an opportunity to raise revenue was being missed by not providing for more parking and that there would be a spill over of parking into surrounding residential streets.
Councillor Lorber (Leader) replied that the Executive had debated the position on parking and had reached a decision. He compared the building of Wembley Stadium which had a capacity of 90,000 and had 2,900 car parking places. The new civic centre would accommodate around 2,000 staff and attract around 1,000 people with provision for 158 parking places. There would be other parking available in the area. On balance he felt there would be adequate provision. The Council had to be seen to follow its own policies on the provision of parking and it did not in any case make economic sense to commit the estimated £2M it would take to provide a few more spaces. Councillor Lorber stated that people’s minds and attitudes needed to be changed around this matter.
Supporting documents: