Agenda item
Deputations (if any)
Minutes:
Three deputations had been received which the Committee agreed to hear. The Chair explained that the purpose of the Committee was to scrutinise and that only the Executive and Full Council had decision making powers.
Martin Francis was invited to make his deputation. He felt that no councillor would have stood for election with the intention to make cuts that would be to the detriment of the people of Brent. He thought the cuts were an ideological attack on local government and needed to be managed. He drew attention to Councillor Butt’s statement of protecting the integrity of the budget as a priority, but felt that managing cuts that would harm services was a contradiction of this priority. Martin Francis felt that this would lead to impossible choices being made which would harm the most vulnerable in society and queried whether the Council should even be making these choices and in effect be ‘cutting off its own limbs’. Instead of a budget set in line with cuts and funding available, a needs based budget should be designed to protect the needs of the people of Brent, publicised and support gained from other Councils to take a stand against the cuts.
Graham Durham was invited to make his deputation. He drew the Committee’s attention to an article in the Guardian highlighting the loss of spending per person over the past three financial years. The average loss for Labour controlled councils was £107 per person, £38 per person for a Liberal Democrat led Council and £36 per person for a Conservative led Council. He felt that the statistics showed a class based attack on Councils. Out of 326 Councils, the majority of worst off Councils were Labour led, with Hackney losing the most per person of £266, compared to North Dorset only losing £2.70 per person. Graham Durham explained that Brent was on the front page for worst hit losing £120.21 per person due to the coalition cuts and with 29.9% of children living in poverty. He queried why a Labour Council were sending some of its poorest families to Hastings and being an initiator of the coalition’s class based cuts against the poor.
Isabelle Counihan was invited to speak. She highlighted to the Committee the precarious position her family were in, namely that they were homeless and felt victims of social cleansing. She continued to explain that she and her children were born and raised in Brent, her husband earned £400 per week as a bus driver, they paid their taxes and due to being left a piece of land that earned £18 a week, were no longer eligible for housing benefit. Isabelle Counihan felt that prior to the Localism Bill there was a disincentive for Local Government to invest in social housing which has subsequently led to the Council now being unable to house 1000’s of families and potentially moving them out of the borough. It was explained that if her family remained homeless, the children would be placed in foster care at the expense of the Council, and in particular one of the children was autistic and would require specialist care which could exceed the cost of housing the family. She queried how the Council justified borrowing £102m for a new civic centre when the Counihan family had been made homeless twice in the past two weeks at 24 hours’ notice from their temporary accommodation. She highlighted the support she had received from the residents of Kilburn and various groups, feeling that the priorities of the Council were skewed and should focus on providing local services for local people.