Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. View directions
Contact: Peter Goss, Democratic Services Manager, 020 8937 1351, Email: peter.goss@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 150 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 September 2009 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: None declared. |
|
Mayor's Announcements Minutes: The Mayor announced that the Council had won a Corporate Social Responsibility award for the work that went into the Brent Respect Festival 2009. He congratulated the communications team and the festivals team in Environment & Culture in particular, for all the hard work that went into making the environmental theme at the Respect Festival such a success.
The Mayor reminded Members that the Brent to Richmond sponsored walk was taking place on Sunday 18 October and asked that those not able to join the walk support the walkers by sponsoring them. All money raised would go to the Paul Daisely Trust and the Mayor’s Charity Appeal.
In accordance with Standing Orders the Mayor drew attention to the list of current petitions showing progress on dealing with them, circulated around the chamber. |
|
Appointments to Committees and Outside Bodies and Appointment of Chairs/Vice Chairs (if any) Minutes: RESOLVED:
that the following changes be made:
Body Appointment Overview and Scrutiny Committee Councillor Eniola to replace Councillor Joseph as 1st alternate to Councillor H B Patel Children and Families Overview Councillor Beswick to replace and Scrutiny Committee Councillor Eniola Councillor Butt as 1st alternate in place of Councillor Beswick Remove Councillor Butt as 2nd alternate and leave as vacant Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Remove Councillor Eniola as Committee 2nd alternate to Councillor Farrell and leave as vacant Planning Committee Councillor Beswick to replace Councillor Eniola as 1st alternate to Councilor Powney Remove Councillor Beswick as 2nd alternate to Councillor Powney and leave as vacant Councillor Eniola to replace Councillor Mendoza as 1st Alternate to Councillor Baker Forward Plan Select Committee Remove Councillor Eniola as 2nd alternate to Councillor Long and leave as vacant Health Select Committee Remove Councillor Eniola as 2nd alternate to Councillor Moloney and leave as vacant |
|
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 ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Items Selected by Non-Executive Members PDF 56 KB In accordance with Standing Order 39 the following items have been submitted by the members indicated:
(a) Councillor Shaw (b) Councillor Joseph (c) No item submitted Minutes: (i) Thames Water
Councillor Shaw introduced her item by pointing out that at times of heavy rain residents complained of sewage flooding their basements. This caused damage to property and was detrimental to their health. Thames Water had said that the drainage system was adequate but it clearly was not. She urged the Executive to take this matter up.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Transport and Highways) responded by agreeing to take the matter up. He accepted that residents suffered difficulties with flooding but reported that Thames Water did not consider the area a priority for replacement of the drainage system. He undertook to raise the matter again at future meetings with Thames Water. Councillor Brown added that the Council had no powers of enforcement in this matter and so it was important that all incidents were reported so that lobbying for the works to be undertaken could be strengthened.
(ii) Mains water replacement programme
Councillor Joseph introduced her item by stating that Thames Water was not the only company that dug up the roads but that in this case one whole side of the roads had been dug up which meant that those residents with parking permits had lost two months use of them. Councillor Joseph felt that many of the companies who were responsible for road works took too long to complete them and had a lack of regard to the inconvenience caused to residents. She felt there should be a system of compensation and asked the Executive to look into this.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Transport and Highways) explained that Thames Water was undertaking a programme of mains water replacement in parts of the borough. He agreed to look into the points made by Councillor Joseph and find out what the experience of other councils was. In the meantime he suggested residents should contact the Parking Shop about loss of use of their permits.
RESOLVED:-
that the response provided by the Lead Member on each item be noted. |
|
Reports from: |
|
The report from the Leader or other members of the Executive: Minutes: (i) Improvement and Efficiency Action Plan
Councillor Lorber referred to recent Government announcements of planned cuts in public expenditure and the selling of public assets. It was clear what the future held and the Council intended to be prepared to face it. He added that one year ago the Council produced an Improvement and Efficiency Strategy setting out how the Council would improve services and an action plan had now been developed to continue with the Council’s aim of providing excellent services. It was available on the internet and Councillor Lorber urged Members to read it.
(ii) Residents’ Attitude Survey
Councillor Lorber referred to the recent survey carried out in the borough which showed that 83% of residents were satisfied with the area they lived in which he felt reflected the actions taken by the Council. Other figures showed 65% of residents were satisfied with the way the Council was running its services and around half felt a strong sense of community in the place they lived. Satisfaction rates were also up on environment related issues. Councillor Lorber felt this was an excellent verdict on the performance of the Council.
|
|
Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee The Chair will report orally on the activities of Overview and Scrutiny. Minutes: Councillor Jones reported that only three meetings of the select committees had taken place since the last report. The Forward Plan Select Committee had met to consider the decisions called-in on the West London Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy and on the Modernisation of the Council’s Financial Management Arrangements and Approval for Appointment of Consultants. Following discussion on these two items no alternative views had been sent back to the Executive. The Select Committee had also received briefings on the Future of Brent in2work and Proposed Joint Employment Venture and on the Civic Centre.
The Budget Panel had heard from the Director of Policy and Regeneration on the local effects of the recession. It was clear that the impact of the recession had been significant particularly on the most deprived wards. There was an increase in the take up of benefits and unemployment. Mental illness had increased and there was more acquisitive burglary. The panel had also been updated on the Housing Revenue Account and reviewed previous budgets.
The Performance and Finance Select Committee had considered a number of items including the performance of the Revenues Service, the 4th quarter review of performance and finance in 2008/09 and had heard about the new evidence base which was a new tool that brought all the information on the borough held by the Council into a single accessible point.
|
|
Motions selected by the Group Leaders The Leaders have submitted the following motions to be debated: |
|
Motion selected by the Leader of the Labour Group PDF 55 KB Proposals to enhance local democracy Minutes: Proposals to enhance local democracy
Councillor John moved the motion in her name which put forward ways to enhance local democracy. Councillor John submitted that there was cross party agreement that the provisions in the Local Government Act 2000 did not work well for non-executive members and the scrutiny function. She felt that if meetings of the Council were televised it would lead to improved behaviour by Members. She felt there should be a right for Members to be able to ask questions at meetings of the Executive and that each ward should have its own forum. The motion made other proposals that she felt could be introduced at minimal cost.
The view was submitted that there existed a democratic deficit and as an example of this it was recounted that the Council had approved its budget in March, only for the Chief Executive to issue a newsletter in May stating that the council would need to save £50M over the next four years. This was noted at the July Council meeting with no other discussion of the issue. However, it was pointed out that the government of the day had changed the law in a deliberate act to abolish the committee style of governance. As for holding meetings at other venues it was pointed out that this had been tried before and resulted in public disturbances. Another view was submitted that proposals such as those put forward needed more detailed discussions which should be undertaken by a small Member-level group.
Councillor Lorber moved an amendment to the motion, accepting a suggestion that reference to ‘all party’ should read ‘all-party/group’. He stated that whilst he understood the frustrations expressed, it was a matter of fact that the legislation invested power in the Executive and this position needed to be accepted. He agreed that improvements could be made but the motion before Council was not the way to achieve these.
A further view expressed support for the ideas put forward by the motion by pointing out that the council already televised marriage ceremonies and it was a logical step to extend this to citizenship ceremonies. Holding meetings at external venues was a positive suggestion and it was felt the current response provided by Lead Members to issues raised at Council meetings was not sufficient. The cost of some of the proposals was raised, such as televising proceedings, both to the Council and to residents who would have to pay a subscription charge. It was not felt likely there would be a high take up. It was submitted that once the committee system was abolished it rendered Council meetings virtually useless. The suggestion to hold meetings in other parts of the borough could be implemented without the need for a Council decision and reference was made to the Children and Families Committee having done this. It was submitted that people were not well informed on how government, including local government worked. Whilst some of the proposals included in the motion were supported ... view the full minutes text for item 8a |
|
Motion selected by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group PDF 55 KB Local Housing Allowance Minutes: Local Housing Allowance
Councillor Allie moved the motion in Councillor Lorber’s name which called on the Council to oppose the Government’s proposal to remove the local housing allowance. He stated that this amounted to an attack on the poorest members of the community.
It was submitted that the current legislation had not been successful in introducing more competition into the setting of private sector rents and that a large number of properties were not picked up by the scheme. Another view was put that things had changed since the legislation was introduced and it was right that the government reviewed such areas of spending. Many people were not able to benefit from the allowance and it was felt that such a motion would harm the reputation of the Council.
RESOLVED:
This Council notes that at present 300,000 people in the UK on low incomes are allowed to keep up to £780 a year of their housing allowance if they find accommodation that costs less than the maximum benefit. This Council also notes that this reform was introduced to give tenants greater control over their housing arrangements by paying the rent themselves and the option to trade quality for extra money.
This Council notes however that under proposals which will be implemented next April by the Labour Government, this system will be scrapped, a decision which could cost many of Brent’s poorest residents up to 20% of their income or up to £15 per week. This Council notes with concern that the removal of competition means that landlords will raise rents to the allowance maximum making it yet more difficult for our poorest residents.
This Council condemns the Labour Government for once again abandoning the people who need help the most and resolves to write to Brent’s MPs encouraging them to oppose these proposals.
|
|
Motion selected by the Leader of the Conservative Group PDF 50 KB Disruption to key public sector services Minutes: Disruption to key public sector services
Councillor Blackman moved the motion in his name referring to the disruption in the country caused by industrial dispute and the deteriorating popularity of the Government. He added that there was no excuse for such strike action or for the macho-management styles adopted and instead round table discussions should be used to settle the disputes. He pointed out that in contrast the Council was planning for the future in discussion with its staff.
Councillor Sneddon moved an amendment to the motion which sought to acknowledge the need for modernisation of working practices and that this needed the support of the workforce.
A view was put that it was not the trade unions that posed a threat but other arms of government. Reference was made to the threat to pensions, the imposition of charging that impacted greatest on the poorest, cuts proposed by the Mayor of London and the threat of redundancy that the Council’s staff faced.
The amendment to the motion moved by Councillor Sneddon was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.
RESOLVED:
This Council notes the proposed strike by members of the RMT on the Victoria Line on 5October and threats for further strikes on the London Underground. This Council also notes the result of the ballot for the proposed strike by postal workers.
This Council believes that in the twenty-first century every organisation must constantly modernise its working practices to improve performance and efficiency.
This Council also believes that successful change programmes are those that command the support of the workforce.
Accordingly the Council calls on both management and unions of the organisations concerned to recognise these two truths and work together to improve services and avoid causing suffering to Brent residents.
|
|
Urgent Business At the discretion of the Mayor to consider any urgent business. Minutes: None. |