Agenda item
Questions from the Opposition and other Non- Executive Members
Questions will be put to the Executive
Minutes:
Councillor Allie asked whether the Council had any plans to alter its housing allocation scheme to give any priority to people in work given the importance of encouraging strong mixed communities in areas with lots of social housing. Councillor Long (Lead member for Housing) replied that the Council was presently out to consultation on its housing allocation policy and the issue of including employment status presented the Council with a conundrum. Councillor Allie responded by saying that a ghetto effect could arise from placing a high proportion of out of work people in areas of high social housing and by adding in a priority for those on the waiting list who were in work it would create a more mixed tenancy. He felt this should be taken account of in the Council's housing allocation policy.
Councillor Hashmi asked why parking meters did not accept some coins such as 5 pence, and why parking machines did not give change when people put in pound coins and overpaid for parking. He felt this was very inconvenient to many people who needed to park. Councillor J Moher (Lead member for Highways and Transportation) replied that most parking meters were of a standard design. If people did not have the correct money they usually had the option to pay by phone. He did not think it was a big problem for most people. Councillor Hashmi responded by saying that he had spoken to many residents who did not have a credit card and he submitted that they should not be required to pay by this means. He felt the Council must be making a lot of money from drivers who did not have the correct change for the parking meters. Councillor Hashmi stated that the technology now existed for parking time to be extended by the amount that people over paid and that this should be looked into.
Councillor Sneddon stated that everybody had noticed how the streets were getting dirtier and more littered as a result of the Council's decision to reduce street sweeping from three times a week to one or two times a week. He had been contacted by many people who lived near those areas with a high footfall pointing out the effects this was having. He added that the effect was cumulative and each time there was more litter and rubbish than before to clean up. Councillor Sneddon also felt there was a big problem with overflowing litter bins at the weekend, as the street cleaning staff were no longer around to empty the bins as often. He asked what remedial action the Council would be taking. Councillor J Moher (Lead member for Highways and Transportation) replied that the majority of the reductions had been in residential areas with a light litter drop. However, he acknowledged that a build-up of litter could occur in more built up areas. It was therefore important to educate people on the anti-social effects of dropping litter. Councillor Moher assured members that the street sweeping contract was monitored and where problem areas came to light they were dealt with. Councillor Sneddon responded by suggesting that there had to be the flexibility to target the worst areas and that consideration should be given to altering the frequency of street cleaning to better meet the need in the borough.
Councillor Lorber asked if it could be explained why nothing had been done to stop Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) purchasing new homes in Barnet as part of the settled homes initiative which could not then be used to house families in need because Brent had not obtained Barnet’s permission. These homes were now on the market and had cost taxpayers thousands of pounds in purchase costs without benefitting anyone. Councillor Long (Lead member for Housing) replied by admitting that mistakes had been made by both the Council and BHP but that negotiations were still continuing with Barnet. Before these were concluded she would not be finally commenting on the matter. Councillor Lorber responded by saying that he felt the reply he had received showed complacency and that this was a fiasco that needed dealing with immediately. He pointed out that the funding from the Homes and Communities Agency should have delivered 225 new homes for people in need in Brent this year but as a result of this episode the target had been revised to 115. Losing all the money was bad enough but he felt the tragedy was that so many families in desperate need of housing had lost out. This had happened when there were three Labour councillors on the BHP board and no Liberal Democrats so it was Labour’s responsibility.
Councillor Cheese asked how much the taxpayer spent on paying for the Executive members to eat out at a hotel after the end of the Awaydays this year. Councillor John replied that the question was a last resort from a political group with nothing of substance to offer. The meal had been arranged to foster good working relations between lead members and chief officers and this was not an exceptional event. Discussions at the Awaydays had centred on the biggest change faced by local government in a generation and providing the means to discuss the issues was very important. Councillor Cheese acknowledged that only light refreshment had been provided but felt that, given the budget situation and the fact that so many people were struggling, it was totally inappropriate for the Executive members to treat themselves to meals at the taxpayer’s expense.
Councillor Van Kalwala stated that it was presently a terrible time for young people living with the consequences of the government's actions and asked what the Council was doing to get young people into training and work. Councillor Arnold (Lead member for Children and Families) replied that an effective vocational framework had been developed. There had been a 17% increase in the take up of training opportunities but this was below the level of comparable neighbouring boroughs. She added that the key was to enhance the supply of job opportunities through job creation schemes and apprenticeships which provided a vital route into work. Councillor Van Kalwala congratulated the Council on the work it was doing and the companies the Council was working with.
Councillor Gladbaum stated that those parents being consulted on possible nursery closures were confused, and possibly some councillors as well, because they had been told that the Early Intervention Grant was no longer ring fenced, but the MP for Brent Central who was a Government minister for Children and Families had told them it was still ring fenced. Councillor Gladbaum asked what the true position was. Councillor Arnold (Lead member for Children and Families) replied the grant was no longer ring fenced and she agreed that it did not help parents to be so misled. Councillor Gladbaum added that this confirmed what she had always thought; that the Liberal Democrats could not be trusted and said different things to different people.
Councillor McLennan referred to the London Councils’ research which showed Brent would be disproportionately affected by cuts to the Local Housing Allowance, and by the cap on Universal Credit, and asked what preparations the Council was making to ensure people were protected from the coalition government’s attempts at social engineering through the welfare system. Councillor Long (Lead member for Housing) replied that she was pleased to say that a proactive approach was being taken to try to protect local residents because, as the London Councils report stated, one in three Brent residents would be affected. All those families potentially affected by the changes had been written to inviting them to seek help. A grant was available from the Department for Work and Pensions but this was limited and she expressed continuing concern because it was not known if it would be possible to protect them completely from the government's actions which might force families to move out of the borough. Councillor McLennan thanked the lead member for her reply.
Councillor Naheerathan referred to the changes in local government housing finance to be introduced in 2012 and asked how tenants would benefit from the reforms. Councillor Long (Lead member for Housing) replied that reform of the Housing Revenue Account which began under the last government was continuing and would benefit Brent as far as the consequent debt reduction was concerned but the Government had made announcements that day on right to buy discounts that threatened this. This would make it more difficult to make the reforms work for the benefit of the Council and tenants. Councillor Naheerathan thanked the lead member for her response.
Councillor Colwill stated that he had been seeking information on the current investigation at Furness Road Primary School into financial mismanagement but was disappointed he had not been able to get any information from the Children and Families Department and so felt he had to bring the matter to the attention of Full Council. He asked why opposition councillors had not received a briefing or been told that an investigation was occurring. Councillor Arnold (Lead member for Children and Families) replied that she understood all members had received a briefing on the situation at Furness School. An interim executive board for the school had been put in place and the past Head was subject to on-going disciplinary action. Councillor Colwill responded that no briefing had been provided until he had been forced to draw attention to the matter.