Agenda item
Questions from the Opposition and other Non- Executive Members
Questions will be put to the Executive
Minutes:
Councillor Brown stated that it should not surprise anyone that every Autumn leaves fell off deciduous trees and that most Autumns experienced wet weather. The combination of wet leaves on damp pavements was dangerous. Councillor Brown asked if, given the length of time it had taken the Council to sweep some roads, it was a mistake to abandon the special leaf-fall collections. Councillor J Moher (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) replied by agreeing that fallen leaves could be a nuisance but that the Council was faced with having to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. He added that there was some existing provision and that residents could help themselves by clearing leaves from outside their houses. Councillor Brown responded by criticising the excuse that it was all down to money and felt residents would not be pleased with the suggestion that they sweep the leaves themselves. He referred to the previous Council Administration which had ensured adequate resources were available to properly sweep the streets and the risk now of increased insurance claims from people slipping on the leaves.
Councillor Pavey referred to details from the Government of its plans to slash Early Intervention services. He asked for an outline of what impact this would have on the most vulnerable residents in Brent, and whether the Council would write to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer calling for an urgent rethink on this decision. Councillor Arnold (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that the Government had moved the goal posts on early intervention work and was top slicing the budget to retain the money centrally to develop initiatives. Some money was being passed on but other funding remained unaccounted for leaving a 33% cut in the level of funding to the Council. Councillor Arnold outlined some of the areas that would suffer from this funding shortfall and expressed her concern at why this situation was being allowed to happen. Councillor Pavey referred to a situation known to him where the introduction to a sure start centre had provided the required support and how this change in funding jeopardised the provision of such support. He regarded the cut as vicious and heartless.
Councillor Cheese asked why local residents were being charged for the disposal of bulky waste at Abbey Road Re-use and Recycling Centre despite the assurances previously received that the charges were targeted at trade waste customers such as builders. Councillor Powney (Lead Member for Environment and Neighbourhoods) replied that any genuine resident of the borough could arrange to have their bulky rubbish removed free of charge. There was no reason for them to have to drive to the re-use and recycling centre. The purpose behind the charge for DIY related disposal was to bring it into line with neighbouring sites and reduce demand for this type of disposal. The income to West London Waste from such charges was substantial and amounted to £250,000 per annum. Councillor Cheese responded that it had been his understanding that West London Waste would take a pragmatic view on very small quantities of waste, and that the average householder delivering small quantities of waste in their own car would be largely unaffected. This was clearly not happening as he had received reports of intransigent staff and of residents being charged. He felt that this was not about tackling abuse of the waste disposal system but more about supporting Waste London Waste’s finances. He suggested Brent taxpayers were having to contribute up to £609,000 in order to keep West London Waste solvent and this should have been reported to the Budget and Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor HB Patel referred to the provision of alley gates which were popular with local residents because they helped prevent fly tipping, burglaries etc. About 200 gates had been installed across the borough. He asked, given that residents wanted alley gates, why a decision had been made not to allow the use of ward working funding for this. Councillor Jones (Lead Member for Customers and Citizens) replied that she was proud of the alley-gating scheme but it had been disbanded because cuts in funding meant there was now no-one to maintain the gates and protect the Council’s interests. Ward working funding did not cover such ongoing costs. However, the issue was still under discussion and a solution was being sought. Councillor Patel responded that he was surprised at the answer because it did not appear to be a problem in the past and wondered what the potential liability was. Such concerns did not appear to be taken into account when distributing money for other projects. He hoped a solution would be found because alley-gating helped residents, the Council and the police to improve safety and security in the borough.
Councillor Hunter stated that she and the Liberal Democrat Group welcomed the Executive’s decision to appoint a full-time Director of Public Health, which followed the Health Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation to do so, rather than have a post shared with Hounslow. However, she was concerned that the appointment was initially only for one year and so asked how the position would be monitored and evaluated to ensure that it was not merely a postponement of what was proposed in the first place, but a genuine desire to see whether it really did need a full-time post for the foreseeable future, particularly at a time of such major change with public health being brought back into the local council arena. Councillor Hirani replied that the report to the Executive made it clear that the director post would be full-time for Brent and he personally did not envisage this changing. However, he could not say what might happen in years to come. Councillor Hirani explained the role of the new director and stressed the importance of the work to be done. Councillor Hunter welcomed the Executive’s recognition that members of all parties on the Health Partnerships Overview and Scrutiny Committee usually had an on-going, in-depth understanding of the health issues they were asked to scrutinise. She referred to locally sensitive issues such as the closure of Accident and Emergency Units, where committee members focused on the clinical evidence such as the fact that 85% of visits to the local A & Es were already being handled by the 24/7 urgent care centres and the success of the reconfiguration of the stroke service, where, despite opposition, 32 units, London-wide, had been replaced by eight specialist centres, resulting in the fact that 400 extra lives were being saved yearly, 100 of them in North West London. The patterns of NHS healthcare were changing and Councillor Hunter submitted that it would take continued cross party work to ensure Brent residents got first class health provision both from inside the NHS and, from next April, the public health services provided by Brent Council. She ended by referring to comments made at the London Councils Summit by the London Mayor, which she supported, concerning not being too concerned about buildings over services and getting cross party buy-in.
Councillor Van Kalwala asked if it was agreed that unemployment was divisive and immoral and what was the Council doing to help residents to find work in such difficult times. Councillor Crane (Lead Member for Regeneration and Major Projects) agreed that unemployment was extremely divisive. He outlined a range of measures the Council was looking to provide in order to get people into work. BACES was seeking to help fill the gap between training and getting into employment. The Council was working with an organisation called Rocket Science and other partner agencies to try to expand the job opportunities available. A team of six ‘navigators’ had been recruited to work with the most excluded individuals hardest hit by the benefit caps to try to get them into work to enable them to stay in their homes. Councillor Crane added that a briefing paper on these initiatives had been sent to all councillors. Councillor Van Kalwala congratulated the Council on the work it was doing and criticised the Brent Central MP, Sarah Teather, for not standing up for local people.
Councillor Hopkins asked if the Leader would apologise to the library campaigners who put faith in him, and believed his warm words following his appointment as Leader and who now felt let down by the obstacles his administration had continually put in their way, from the triggering of the reverter clause of the All Souls libraries to blocking the use of ward working funding for library-related projects. Councillor Butt (Leader) replied that he had nothing to apologise for because it was the Government’s fault that the Council’s grant had been cut requiring cuts in services to be made and he pointed out that further cuts were having to be made that would heavily impact on local residents. Councillor Hopkins pointed out that the closure of the libraries had previously been called a transformation programme, not cuts so the Leader’s reply did not mean much to the campaigners who felt let down. The Cricklewood and Kensal Rise library volunteers now had to negotiate with an Oxford college for use of the buildings instead of their local council and although the negotiations were proving difficult they were less difficult than had been the case with the Council.
Councillor Naheerathan asked what the Council could do to help residents with rising energy prices. Councillor Butt (Leader) replied that this issue was one of the most important issues faced by local residents because of the recession they faced. They were being charged more for energy at the same time as energy companies were making record profits. He announced that plans would be brought forward to establish an energy co-operative whereby collective buying power could help reduce prices. Councillor Butt also reported that £160,000 had been secured from the Department of Health to support a programme sponsored by the council and NHS Brent and run by Energy Solutions aimed at lowering the number of preventable deaths in the borough in the event of a sudden cold snap by providing expertise and practical help to those who needed it most. Councillor Naheerathan responded by saying that, as residents faced more benefit cuts and higher energy bills, it was good to know that the Council was working hard to protect local residents from the cuts imposed by the Government.
Councillor Shaw asked if it was the Government that had asked the Council to close six libraries and referred to the Willesden library as the seventh casualty. She referred to the provision of IT for members, expenditure on hotels and the building of the civic centre and asked if the sustainable regeneration of the Willesden High Road had been considered. Whilst going some way to meeting residents’ concerns by agreeing to retain some of the old library building, Councillor Shaw asked why the Council was giving away the land associated with the Willesden Library centre and why the consultation had been shambolic. Councillor Butt (Leader) replied that consideration had been given to all the responses received expressing concern in an effort to provide a better development. The outcome had been the design of a building that would provide better space for the library and provide community space all at no cost to the Council. The planning application for the development was now subject to consideration by the Planning Committee. Councillor Shaw responded that there was concern that some decisions were being taken for the convenience of the developer rather than the needs of local residents. The provision of 90 luxury flats did not provide the facilities needed in the area. The High Road offered plenty of eating and drinking but little else. Councillor Shaw stated that a specialist retail shop like the bookshop should be supported because it added real value to the area; and play space was needed for young people and families. She did not consider that the scheme contributed towards sustainable regeneration of the area.
Councillor Harrison asked what the likely impact was for Brent residents of the coalition Government and Conservative Mayor of London’s plans to cut emergency services. Councillor Beswick (Lead Member for Crime and Public Safety) replied that the situation concerned life and limb. He stated that Willesden police station was closing and Willesden fire station was facing a similar situation. Services at Central Middlesex Hospital had been closed and the counter service at Harlesden police station had been closed. He regarded this as a slash and burn approach by the Government. He felt everyone needed to lobby the Government against further cuts and condemn those already made. Councillor Harrison referred to the White Ribbon Campaign and the increase in domestic violence. She stated that cuts made to the community safety fund would impact on local residents and expressed the hope that lobbying the Government would persuade it to change its mind over this.