Decision details

(1)        The following Motion submitted by the Conservative Group, was declared LOST and not approved:

 

“Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) – Don’t Punish Brent Drivers

 

This Council notes that:

 

1.     On 4th March 2022 the Mayor of London announced his plan to expand the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) from its current boundary of the North and South Circular Roads to cover almost all of Greater London.  Despite the best efforts of Londoners, the Mayor of London (Sadiq Khan) pushed through and expanded the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on 29th August 2023 to all cover the whole of London.

 

2.     Whilst the ULEZ was originally introduced covering the same area and with the same boundaries as the Congestion Charge Zone it was expanded on 25th October 2021 by 18 times its original size to its previous boundaries before the further expansion on 29^th August 2023.  The ramifications of this significant change are being felt in outer London Boroughs with the full extent still to be assessed. It goes without saying that the Mayor of London is on an anti-car rampage and won’t be satisfied until we are “all out of cars”!

 

3.     The expansion of ULEZ means that those with non-compliant vehicles are paying £12.50 per day to drive within the ULEZ.  Residents are being forced to pay more to get to work, attend hospital appointments, visit friends and family and are not being able to take advantage of local businesses and high streets. This is costing jobs with essential workers such as doctors, nurses, care workers, teachers who rely on their vehicles also affected, especially those working nights who rely on use of their cars.  ULEZ is damaging the social fabric of our local area, and many businesses have been forced to locate elsewhere or plan to close.

 

4.     The ULEZ is a regressive tax, as the less well-off are disproportionately penalised. The expansion has also meant many more areas with poor public transport have been included within the zone which is fundamentally unfair as those residents unable to afford to keep or replace their car are being forced to rely on inadequate levels of public transport.

 

5.     It is disappointing, but not at all surprising, that the Mayor of London has left a black hole in TfL’s finances and the Labour Mayor now expects millions of families to foot the bill with an exorbitant £12.50 daily charge.

 

6.     Drivers have paid an estimated £52 million in levies and fines in the first month of the ULEZ expansion.  £52 million paid out of the pockets of the poorest Londoners is a disgrace with the scheme nothing more than a tax andmoney making scheme and nothing to do with protecting environment.

 

7.    During his time in office as Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has accumulated enough air miles to fly around the world fourteen times. He even chose to fly to Argentina for a hybrid meeting. All this whilst charging Londoners more and more to use their cars! That can't be right.

 

8.     The science behind the expansion and other anti-pollution measures more generally is a case of pay your money, pick your scientist. Sadiq Khan has pointed towards figures suggesting ULEZ reduced Nitrous Oxide levels by more than a quarter in its first six months but a team at Imperial College. London looked at the data and suggested they fell by just 3%. Lies, damn lies, and emissions statistics.

 

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan’s suggestion that a majority of voters back his crusade to tackle air pollution and that backing ULEZ places him on “the right side of history” and might work as a long-term strategy, is a fantasy.

 

As a result of the concerns highlighted this Council believes that:

 

1.     Measures such as ULEZ which have been backed by the Labour leadership nationally, push up the cost of living in Brent by imposing taxes and charges on residents who rely on motor vehicles without providing them with realistic alternatives should continue to be opposed.

 

2.     The £400 million set aside by the Mayor of London for the expansion of ULEZ and related projects would have been better spent on measures that would have a more positive impact on residents in Brent and across London such as

 

·             a faster upgrade to a zero-emission bus fleet.

·             increasing the roll out of rapid electric vehicle charging points.

·             encouraging more freight consolidation schemes.

·             bringing back the previous Boiler Cashback Scheme to encourage Londoners to upgrade their boilers to reduce household emissions.

·             financing a generous scrappage scheme to support Londoners in replacing their non-compliant vehicles.

 

Therefore, this Council resolves to call on the Leader of the Council to write to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan outlining the concerns set out within the motion and crippling impact of the ULEZ tax on residents in Brent.”

 

(2)        The following Motion submitted by the Liberal Democrats, was declared LOST and not approved:

 

“Making our Voting System Fairer and More Representative

 

This Council believes:

 

The next General Election is an opportunity to take our country on a different course after years of chaotic Tory rule. This is especially true in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, which saw the UK crash out of the European Union, with a bad deal, that has left us diminished, poorer and less important on the world stage. The next General Election will be fought under the antiquated First Past the Post voting system.

 

First Past the Post (FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men. It is not fit for a ‘modern democracy’.

 

In Europe, only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. This produces governments that have typically not had strong support across the country.

 

Internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect the Parliaments of more than 80 countries.  It is a system that works and has fostered a more consensual, pragmatic way of conducting politics and policy making.

 

PR ensures that all votes count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of both local communities and of the nation. Whilst the UK has taken leaps forwards in terms of electing a more diverse Parliament, we are still behind many other countries.

 

MPs better reflecting the communities they represent in turn leads to improved decision making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken. PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with 56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. Fair, proportional votes also prevent ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974.

 

PR is now the national policy of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Women’s Equality Party along with a host of Trade Unions and pro-democracy organisations.

 

There is a growing consensus that the UK’s voting system must change.

 

PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its use should now be extended to include Westminster and considered at a local level too.

 

Our democracy is in a fragile state, with confidence in politics at a record low. Changing the voting system to guarantee that every vote counts equally can help to inspire renewed confidence in our political system, increase participation and ensure that the electorate are able to elect the type of government that the majority of the British people want to see.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

 

1)     Join 29 other local authorities across the country, of different political persuasions, in supporting calls for a change to the UK’s voting system to Proportional Representation.

 

2)     Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections and local Council elections.

 

3)     Request that the Leader of the Council write to H.M Leader of the Opposition to encourage that the Labour Party include changing the electoral system in their next election manifesto.”

 

(3)    The following Motion submitted by the Labour Group was AGREED:

 

“Save our Services

 

This Council notes:

 

·             The ongoing campaign by both Unison and the Local Government Association highlighting the devastating impact of cuts and the £3.5bn shortfall in funding for the local services we all rely on every day.

 

·             During the pandemic, councils spent billions of publicly accountable funds, to protect the most vulnerable residents – and now after 13 years of cuts, local services that were already stretched are at breaking point.

 

·             Over the last thirteen years core funding from government has decreased by 78%. On top of the £210m of cuts made since 2010 we now must find a further £8m in cuts between 2024/25 and 2025/26.

 

·             While funding has decreased, demand for our services has exponentially increased. There are now 800,000 more Londoner’s and overall funding across the capital remains a fifth lower than 13 years ago.

 

·             Rather than fully fund local government from the centre, successive Conservative Chancellors have moved the responsibility onto residents – using Council Tax, a tax aimed not at the wealth of the occupants but based on your property value as rated in 1991. The Government has consistently declined other equitable alternatives to raise funding.

 

·             Successive Conservative Chancellors have insisted that Core Spending Power has increased in local government – but this metric is a smokescreen and reliant on all local authorities increasing Council Tax by the maximum amount.

 

·             In a recently published study, London Councils, a cross-party organisation representing all 32 boroughs, has found that councils across the capital face a £400m shortfall in 2023. Of this figure, nearly £90m is due to unprecedented pressures on Temporary Accommodation. They also found that 9 in 10 boroughs were expected to overspend on their budgets this year.

 

·             The cross-party Local Government Association has published analysis ahead of the Chancellors Autumn Statement, showing that inflation has added £15 billion nationally to the cost of delivering council services in just 2 years.

 

·             A survey of 47 local authorities in the SIGOMA group revealed that five are in the process of deciding whether to issue a Section 114 notice and a further nine councils may have to declare bankruptcy next year, with at least 12 other councils across the country also considering issuing a section 114 notice in 23/24.

 

This Council also notes:

 

·             Over the last 13 years of austerity, difficult decisions have been taken to allow this council to pass a legally balanced budget each year. In doing so, funding has been directed to protect frontline statutory services and ensure no resident is left behind – with to date, £14.5m invested in the Residents Support Fund and £32m dedicated to our Council Tax Support Scheme each year.

 

·             Sadly, Brent like authorities up and down the UK, is experiencing an unprecedented demand for housing, driven by spiralling rents, catalysed by high interest rates.

 

·             If demand continues at the same rate, the housing needs service will receive a total of 7,700 applications this financial year, an average of 148 applications every week, the highest it has ever been.

 

·             In the last year, we saw more new homes built in Brent than anywhere else in the country. In contrast Liberal Democrat controlled Richmond, Kingston and Sutton built less than 200 between them.

 

·             Yet our increased supply cannot keep pace with unparalleled demand, with a 22% increase in the number of residents presenting as homelessness, when compared to last year.

 

·             The Chair of the G15 group of major housing associations has said that the capital is now facing the “worst situation” in regards to housing, ever seen. With inflation in the construction sector running at between 25% and 43% many major projects will need to be paused to await more favourable economic conditions.

 

·             The seriousness of the Council’s financial position cannot be understated. Fulfilling our statutory duty to support those at risk of homelessness has driven a potential overspend estimated by officers at £13m.

 

·             As a result, we are bringing in additional spending controls across the council to help balance our budget this year. These sensible, proactive and prudent measures will ensure vital services are safeguarded at the same time as protecting our financial position.

 

This Council believes:

 

·             Austerity was always a political choice not an economic necessity.

 

·             The government should be held accountable for its role in every Section 114 notice issued by councils of all political colours across the country.

 

·             It is the essential role of all Councillors to set a balanced budget, which ensures the long-term sustainability of this council.

 

This Council welcomes:

 

·             The recommendations of Labour’s Commission on the UK’s future, chaired by Gordon Brown, setting out a plan for what Labour would do for local government – bringing decisions closer to the people affected by them; and with longer-term financial settlements, moving away from a model of ad-hoc bidding for funding pots.

 

·             The Leader of the Labour Party’s recent comments outlining how a Labour government would fix how councils are funded and move away from short-term funding settlements. In contrast, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said “it was up to councils to manage their own finances”.

 

This Council resolves:

 

1)     To request that the Leaders of all Group’s should write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and call on the government to take responsibility for providing the long-term sustainable funding that councils so desperately need.

 

2)     To ensure that budget proposals taken by Brent Council prioritise the protection of frontline services and the support available to residents most in need.

 

3)     To support London Councils five-point plan to address the housing crisis in the capital:

 

·             Raising Local Housing Allowance (LHA)

·             Supporting councils to buy accommodation sold by private landlords

·             Boost Homelessness Prevention Grant funding

·             Increase Discretionary Housing Payments

·             Bring forward a cross-departmental strategy to reduce homelessness.”

 

(4)    The following Motion submitted by the Labour Group was AGREED:

 

“Lift the Ban

 

This Council notes that:

 

·             Brent has a proud history of embracing individuals seeking safety within our borough. Our diverse community of communities has contributed to the values which make Brent the open and welcoming borough it is today.

 

·             The Conservative Government’s attitude towards asylum seekers is unacceptable. It seeks to demonise families who have come to the UK for safety and a better life. This is reflected in both the UK-Rwanda partnership, which will criminalise refugees and threaten them with removal to Rwanda. It is also seen in the recent rhetoric of the Home Secretary who has said that multiculturalism has “failed”.

 

·             The government’s approach can be seen in the significant problems with the UK asylum system, with over 700 individuals residing indefinitely in hotels in Brent while awaiting the outcome of their application to remain. There is a record backlog of cases awaiting a decision alongside a de facto ban on working, all of which leads to a circle of impoverishment.

 

·             Since 2002, people seeking asylum have only been able to apply for the right to work after they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year, and only if they can be employed into one of the narrow, highly-skilled professions included on the government’s Shortage Occupation List.

 

·             That people seeking asylum are left to live on £5.39 per day, struggling to support themselves and their families, and left vulnerable to destitution, isolation, and exploitation.

 

·             The potential for economic gain of millions of pounds to the UK via increased taxable income and reduced payments of accommodation and subsistence support is foregone.

 

This Council believes that:

 

·             The Home Secretary’s view that multiculturalism has failed is an insult to the residents that have built their lives in Brent and contributed to this borough.

 

·             People seeking asylum want to be able to work so that they can use their skills and make the most of their potential, integrate into their communities, and provide for themselves and their families.

 

·             Restrictions on the right to work can lead to extremely poor mental health outcomes, a waste of potentially invaluable talents and skills for the economy, and greater poverty and homelessness in Brent.

 

·             Allowing people seeking asylum the right to work would therefore lead to positive outcomes for the local and national economy.

 

·             The UK needs an asylum system that empowers people seeking safety to rebuild their lives and enables communities to welcome them, not to isolate them.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

 

1)     Join the Lift the Ban Coalition (led by refugee action), which is campaigning to restore the right to work for everyone waiting for more than 6 months for a decision on their asylum claim.

 

2)     Request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary to request that:

 

·             People seeking asylum and the right to work should be unconstrained by the shortage occupation list, after they have waited six months for a decision on their initial asylum claim or further submission.

 

·             The Home Office work with local authorities and communities to build a refugee protection system that treats all people with dignity and compassion.

 

·             Financial support be made available for councils like Brent, that will have more refugees that require wraparound support with housing, upon being awarded the right to remain.

 

·             The Home Secretary apologise for describing rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice.” There are at least 1.5 million people residing in the UK that have no recourse to public funds, many facing homelessness and many whose visa status has not been determined.”