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.
Brent’s transport fleet – alternative fuel vehicles
The question from Councillor Powney had asked if alternative fuel vehicles would be considered when replacing the Council’s transport fleet, how much this would contribute to cutting the Council’s carbon emissions and if the current contract with North Kendric Ash would permit it. Councillor Powney referred to the answer given by Councillor Wharton to the question from Councillor Cummins referred to below which stated that electric vehicles did not reduce carbon emissions because they used energy from fossil fuels. He also referred to an item Councillor Cummins raised at a past Council meeting about alternative fuels for the Mayor’s car. If it was worth considering alternative fuels it would clearly be worth including in that consideration the Council’s fleet of 120 minibuses. As his supplementary question, Councillor Powney asked if before committing to a new contract, the Executive would commit to finding out the effect on costs and carbon emissions of switching to a variety of alternative fuel vehicles.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that electric vehicles would not solve the problem and so the most practical way forward was proposed. There was no commercial hybrid vehicle, the Government had reduced the subsidy on the use of LPG and left only methane which required a big tank which could not be accommodated on the vehicles and anyway methane was a potent greenhouse gas. The approach had been to look at the practical options available and this was already under consideration.
Council expenditure on combating gun and knife crime
The question from Councillor Van Kalwala had asked how much of the Council’s budget was spent on combating gun and knife crime. Councillor Van Kalwala claimed that the work outlined in the answer he had received was funded from external sources and so stated that the Council did not spend any of its mainstream money on this issue. No supplementary question was asked.
Alternative education for excluded pupils
The question from Councillor Moloney had asked what was being done to find alternative education for students excluded from school. He expressed surprise at the answer he had received in light of the M Power training programme being withdrawn with no consultation because no-one was prepared to take the responsibility for running it. As a supplementary question, Councillor Moloney asked why 54 children were abandoned by the Council when M Power was closed with no proper notice given.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied that he had answered the original question put by Councillor Moloney. As regards the running of M Power, this was the responsibility of the John Kelly schools. Following a review it was concluded that the scheme was not achieving value for money and that the young people could be better educated and trained. The head of the Pupil Referral Unit was looking into how improved support could be provided.
Advice to the Mayor at Council meetings
The question from Councillor J Moher had asked how the Chief Executive advised the Mayor on procedural issues at Council meetings. He felt that the Mayor should have to give reasons for decisions made on directing the meetings of Full Council. Councillor Moher asked where in standing orders it gave power to the officers to advise the Mayor on voting.
Councillor Sneddon (Lead Member for Human Resources and Diversity, Local Democracy and Consultation) replied that it was clear that Councillor Moher was disappointed with a decision taken at the last meeting of Full Council. He re-iterated that advice was given to the Mayor and that it was for the Mayor to take the final decision as set out in standing order 4(a).
School places
The question from Councillor Arnold had asked how many children in Brent did not have school places for the start of the school year and how many primary school classes had more than 30 children. Councillor Arnold added that following gaining some of the highest increases per pupil in Government funding and benefiting from the primary capital funding it was hard to see how the Council could loom from crisis to catastrophe in the provision of school places. She stated that it appeared that the planning strategy was simply reactive to numbers and was in some key stage 1classes breaching the 30 children limit. Councillor Arnold asked as her supplementary question if any guarantee could be given that the Council was performing its statutory duty both to provide every Brent child with a school place and stay within class size limits and, if so, whether when planning and projecting both the Council’s schools and the child’s placement needs were being prioritised and how this was being demonstrated.
Councillor Wharton (Lead Member for Children and Families) replied by stating that the requirement for the Council to meet its statutory responsibilities for providing school places had for many years been open to challenge because of the large numbers of places it was having to find. Nevertheless he stated that the Council would meet its statutory responsibilities in the current year. All secondary school pupils had received offers but not all had accepted them and it was usual for some primary school children not to take up their places which would allow further offers to be made.
The following three questions had been selected by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.
Compulsory recycling
The question from Councillor Leaman had asked if more waste was being recycled following the introduction of compulsory recycling and if this had allowed the Council to save money. In the absence of Councillor Leaman, Councillor Bessong stated that it was good to see the saving of £100,000 that had been achieved. On behalf of Councillor Leaman, Councillor Bessong asked as a supplementary question whether it would be better if councils like Brent who had improved their recycling performance did not face huge hikes in Landfill Tax every year leading to increases in Council Tax and if there were any signs that the Government would invest the money taken from this tax back into recycling facilities.
Councillor Lorber (Leader of the Council) replied that the introduction of compulsory recycling had been a resounding success for local people. He stated that the Landfill Tax was a stealth tax which would not be so bad if the Government had kept its promise to re-invest the monies it received into recycling. There existed insufficient capacity in the British recycling industry which needed to be addressed. On behalf of the Administration, Councillor Lorber thanked all residents in the borough who recycled.
Granville New Homes programme
The question from Councillor Dunn had asked for an update on the Granville New Homes programme and what role the Council had in the project. He congratulated the Council on its work in this area and as a supplementary question asked if it would have been better if about 10 years ago the Government had reversed the changes made by the previous Conservative government so that the Council could have built homes earlier without the need for an ALMO.
Councillor Allie (Lead Member for Housing an Customer Services) agreed that the Government had been late to allow Councils to build housing. The reason why the Council had been able to deliver the homes in the Granville new homes programme despite the economic crisis within the country was that it had made the regeneration of South Kilburn a priority.
Free parking permits
The question from Councillor Cummins had asked how many residents had applied for free parking permits following the decision to incentivise the use of vehicles with smaller engine sizes. He added that present arrangements favoured small ‘’second’ cars but did not extend to gas guzzling second vehicle permits which did not encourage smaller more fuel efficient vehicles in two car households. As a supplementary question, Councillor Cummins asked when this might be addressed.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) pointed out that over 1000 free permits had been issued for cars under 1100cc against none issued by the previous administration. Under the scheme 203 permits had been issued prior to 2001 for cars under 1200cc and a further 58 permits had been issued since 2001 for cars falling within DVLA bands A, B and C. Councillor Brown stated that the Administration was always looking to improve the scheme so he thanked Councillor Cummins for his suggestion.
The following two questions had
been selected by the Leader of the
Conservative Group.
Wembley event day parking
The question from Councillor HB Patel had asked for the number of PCNs and tow aways for each Wembley event day to be itemised and what the policy was for towing away vehicles. He added that he considered the scheme to be a bad scheme that primarily punished local residents and tax payers rather than concentrated on ensuring the free flow of traffic. Councillor Patel felt the scheme was not working properly and that income from it was down. He asked as a supplementary question if the scheme would be reviewed for the benefit of local residents.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) pointed out that the scheme had already been reviewed and that during the time of the present Administration the number of tow aways had been halved.
Water mains renewal in the Blackbird Hill/Salmon Lane area
The question from Councillor Kansagra had asked what action was to be taken regarding the extensive delays in carrying out the replacement of water pipes in the Blackbird Hill/Salmon Street area. Councillor Kansagra stated that delays should be avoided and that vigilance by the Council was needed to ensure works did not run over time and cause unnecessary delays. As a supplementary question he asked what factors the Council took into account when permitting schemes under the new arrangements referred to in the answer by the Lead Member.
Councillor D Brown (Lead Member for Highways and Transportation) replied that the timing of the scheme in question was agreed in advance and because the programme was a complex one it had a longer duration. The legislation required Councils to allow the statutory undertakers to carry out necessary works and in this case the works had started on time and were due to be completed on time so there was no action to be taken against the utility company. However action would be taken in situations where works did overrun. The new permitting scheme would provide a further tool to enable efficient management of works being carried out and Brent was leading on this.