Agenda item

The Assistant Director for Policy will provide an update on the key factors arising from the evidence base.

Cathy Tyson (Assistant Director – Policy, Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement) gave a presentation on the key factors arising from the borough’s evidence base.  She began by highlighting the discrepancy between the Greater London Authority’s estimate of Brent’s 2011 population of 283,040 and the Office of National Statistic’s estimate of 253,400.  It was of particular importance to ensure residents completed the Census to reflect Brent’s true population.  Cathy Tyson then described some of the key trends of the borough’s demographics, including the fact that the population was relatively young and that 58% of the population were of Black or Asian Minority ethnic, of which 32% were of Indian ethnicity.  Turning to Brent’s general health profile of 2010, Cathy Tyson informed Members that life expectancy overall was similar to the national average, however there were significant inequalities within these figures, including an eight year gap amongst men between the least and most deprived wards.  Rates of new cases for tuberculosis, diabetes and early deaths from heart disease were all above the England average, whilst overall those doing regular physical activity rates were comparatively low.  It was noted that female life expectancy was higher than males in all wards.  Child poverty was a growing concern and this would have a knock-on effect as poor children were most likely to become poor adults and much effort was being directed at addressing this through early years intervention and in developing an interagency child poverty strategy.  Poverty was defined by any household that had 60% or less of national average income and this was particularly prevalent in Kilburn, Harlesden and Stonebridge wards, whilst there were also pockets of poverty in Barnhill and Preston wards.

With regard to housing, Cathy Tyson stated that a key issue in Brent was affordability as it was the third lowest in terms of income of all boroughs in London, whilst having the sixth highest average property price and the second highest in West London.  The housing benefit cap would also have a significant impact in Brent and a key component of the One Council programme was in addressing housing issues and tackling homelessness as this would present a huge challenge, especially as there was to be less funding available for affordable housing.  Members noted the decreasing employment rates since the economic downturn and there were also less attempts to find work due to diminishing incentives, whilst the number of those claiming the Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) was rising and the considerable variation in JSA claimants in Brent wards was noted, as was the fact that approximately 30,000 Brent residents received some form of benefit.  In particular, there had been a significant increase in incapacity benefit claimants, however changes to the assessment criteria would have an impact.  One positive trend that had been identified was the rise of those in self-employment.  However, both unemployment and housing would continue to be key issues and pose a considerable challenge.  Members noted the pattern of incomes and the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) comparison of 2007 and 2010. The IMD was worsening in these three years and Brent was the 52^nd most deprived borough in the UK, which put it in the top ten per cent of poorest nationally.

During discussion by Members, Councillor Gladbaum enquired whether statistical figures were available for those not in education, employment and training (NEETs).  Councillor H B Patel welcomed the efforts being made to ensure an accurate Census and commented on the need to educate residents with regard to the rise in diabetes, tuberculosis and heart disease.  Councillor McLennan advised that each cluster of GPs in Brent had appointed a GP to lead on tackling diabetes and an action plan was being developed.  Councillor Ashraf enquired how the demographic data was collected in view of the complexities involved, such as the considerable movement of people into and out of the borough.  A Brent Youth Parliament representative enquired if there were any details available with regard to physical exercise amongst the young.

The Chair asked what measures the council and its partners were taking to tackle the key issues in the borough, including employment opportunities.  In respect of transport links, he sought details as to how this may impact upon finding employment and whether it may also encourage some residents to relocate elsewhere with better transport links or closer to their workplace.  He also sought further comments in respect of the future impact on housing.

In reply, Cathy Tyson advised that the proportion of those classified as NEETs in Brent was lower than the national average and there had been some success in keeping young people in education and training.  She agreed to arrange for data on this issue to be provided to Councillor Gladbaum.  Members heard that diabetes was considerably above the national average and there were educational factors to consider.  It was hoped that there would be improvements in this area as the partnership with Brent NHS developed.  Members heard that information was compiled both from national agencies and by the council to provide the most accurate evidence base possible.  Information was also obtained from the Client Index and the council’s GIS Team undertook work to refine and understand the data collected.  The relationship with Brent NHS was important in obtaining information on health indicators.  With regard to regular physical exercise amongst young people, Cathy Tyson advised that this was around the national average and there had been recent improvements in this area due to various initiatives including work with schools and promoting swimming in the borough.  She explained that the council needed to take a robust approach in ensuring that the employment agencies were fulfilling their role in providing employment opportunities and scrutiny would play a vital part in holding these agencies to account.  Some residents also needed to be encouraged of the need to be prepared to travel further for work than they were currently.  There had been significant lobbying in respect of the housing benefit changes, however important decisions needed to be made as to how to manage demand.  Private sector housing contractors would also need to be approached with regard to this, particularly in respect of providing larger properties.