Agenda item

To debate the motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 41.

 

Members are asked to note:

 

·         The motions submitted for debate have been attached.

 

·         Where a motion concerns an executive function, nothing passed can be actioned until approved by the Executive or an officer with the relevant delegated power.

 

(Agenda republished to include the motions submitted for debate on 14 November 2023)

(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.”

Before moving on to consider the motions listed on the summons, the Mayor advised members that a total of 40 minutes had been set aside for the consideration of the four motions submitted for debate, based on an initial allocation of 10 minutes per motion. Should the time taken to consider the first motion be less than 10 minutes she advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

 

17.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ): Don’t Punish Brent Drivers

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Jayanti Patel to move the first motion which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group. Councillor Jayanti Patel began by providing context to the motion which had been focussed on concerns regarding the expansion of the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) from its previous boundary along the North and South Circular Road to cover the whole of London, including all of Brent.  This expansion, he felt, had caused a significant impact on local residents and businesses especially for those with non-compliant vehicles not eligible or able to take advantage of the existing limited scrappage scheme and who continued to rely on their vehicles for employment, social use or to take advantage of local businesses and high streets who were being forced to pay the charge to drive within the ULEZ.  In addition, Councillor Patel felt there was a need to recognise the regressive nature of the charge, not only in terms of the less well-off being disproportionately penalised but also in terms of residents unable to afford the charge having to rely on what he felt to be inadequate levels of public transport in many areas.

 

The motion, he pointed out, also sought to challenge the science behind the expansion as an anti-pollution and environmental protection measure with the scheme, in his view, designed purely as a means of generating additional income to address the significant gap in TfL funding during the current the Mayor of London’s tenure.  Highlighting the financial and social impact on local residents and lack of what he regarded as realistic alternatives, such as an acceptable scrappage scheme, Councillor Patel advised the motion was seeking support to abolish the ULEZ expansion with the funding released as a result used to fund other measures which it was felt would have a more positive impact on residents in Brent and across London including faster upgrade to a zero-emission bus fleet, increasing the roll out of rapid electric vehicle charging points, encouraging more freight consolidation schemes, reinstating the Boiler Cashback Scheme and providing a fairer and more generous scrappage scheme for non- compliant vehicles.

 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Jayanti Patel for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

In opening the debate, Councillor Grahl queried the challenge made to the science supporting expansion of the ULEZ given figures provided by the World Health Organisation in relation to the percentage of children now exposed to air pollution and associated damaging health impacts.  Rather than seeking to deny the impact of climate change or criticise the Mayor of London for his efforts to protect the health of those living within the borough and across London, particularly children, Councillor Grahl in opposing the motion felt the more responsible approach would be to support the efforts being led through initiatives such as expansion of the ULEZ to improve air quality and protect health.

 

Councillor Krupa Sheth also speaking against the motion felt it important to recognise the difficult nature of the decisions which had needed to be made in relation to expansion of the ULEZ but which were already making a significant difference in addressing air quality highlighting, as an example, the increase in vehicle compliance across outer London and across London as a whole with ULEZ emission standards since the scheme’s introduction and expansion.  Highlighting the cost to Council taxpayers of the unsuccessful legal challenge against the ULEZ expansion supported by a number of Conservative led outer London Boroughs, it was felt the stance taken by the Mayor of London had sought to place the health of residents over those who continued to pollute with the motion containing no new ideas in seeking to address the climate emergency.  Recognising the impact achieved in reducing levels of nitrogen dioxide since introduction of the ULEZ as well as highlighting and expressing support for the continued expansion of eligibility for the scrappage scheme, Councillor Krupa Sheth urged all members to reject the motion in support of providing a cleaner and greener future for Brent’s residents.

 

In highlighting the importance and ongoing attempts made by the current and the previous Mayor of London to address air quality and pollution, Councillor Lorber felt the most appropriate means of addressing the concerns highlighted would be for the current government to properly finance and support expansion and introduction of a more generous scrappage scheme and for these reasons advised he would also not be supporting the motion.

 

Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor Kansagra felt that the expansion of ULEZ had not represented a serious attempt to address the environmental and health issues highlighted but instead supported the view that it had involved the introduction of a regressive income generation scheme where those who could afford to pay the charge were able to continue polluting.  Given the significant impact on local residents, he encouraged members to support the motion.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak the Mayor then invited Councillor Jayanti Patel to exercise his right of reply.  In summing up Councillor Patel once again highlighted what he felt to be the significant and unfair impact arising from expansion of ULEZ by the Mayor of London on local residents and businesses, many of whom he pointed out were already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.  In support of the motion, he outlined the choice available to residents in the upcoming Mayoral election in seeking to support abolition of the expanded ULEZ and on this basis commended the motion as moved to members.

 

Having thanked members for their contributions the Mayor then moved on to put the motion, as set out below, to a vote which was declared LOST and not therefore 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 and money-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.”

 

17.2   2^nd Motion (Liberal Democrats Group) - Making our Voting System Fairer and More Representative

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Georgiou to move the second motion which had been submitted by the Liberal Democrats Group.  In moving the motion Councillor Georgiou, began by outlining what he felt had been recognised as the unfair and outdated nature of the current First Past the Post electoral system and one that was no longer fit for purpose within a modern democracy.  Highlighting the growing consensus that the UK’s voting system needed to change, which had been supported by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party along with a host of Trade Unions and pro-democracy organisations, he advised that the motion had been designed to support this process and move towards Proportional Representation (PR) as a more consensual and pragmatic way of conducting politics that valued all votes cast equally.  In recognising the extensive use of PR across other democracies the benefits provided in terms of those elected better reflecting the communities they represented were also outlined along with the opportunity to enhance decision making, encourage wider participation and provide renewed confidence in the current political system.  In urging all members to support the motion and join with other local authorities supporting calls for a change to the UK’s voting system, Councillor Georgiou ended by highlighting the opportunity such a change would present to move forward in the aftermath of the current Conservative government and deliver the type of government which it was felt the majority of British people now wanted to see.

 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Georgiou for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

Speaking against the proposed change being sought within the motion, Councillor Maurice opened the debate by highlighting concerns at the impact he felt the introduction of PR would have in enabling more extremist political parties to gain an element of power with damaging consequences on community relations.  Referring to the opportunity already provided to support a change in electoral system through the Alternative Vote referendum held during the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in May 2011, which had been lost, Councillor Maurice pointed out that whilst no electoral system was perfect the current arrangements, in his view, did at least provide a more stable form of government than any coalition.

 

Also speaking in opposition to the motion, Councillor Rubin outlined what he felt to be the advantage of the current First Past the Post electoral system in terms of clearer democratic accountability around delivery of political manifestos and commitments.  This compared to the type of electoral outcome provided through PR often involving the formation of coalitions between parties and the associated compromise which, he felt, could be seen as less democratic.  As an example, Councillor Rubin ended by referring to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government following the election in 2010 and the impact compromises made in the process of forming that government had delivered in terms of tuition fees and the start of austerity.

 

Supporting the concerns raised about the impact of the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition, which he accepted had not provided a strong example of coalition government, Councillor Miller advised that he was minded to support the change being sought within the motion given the stance taken towards the proposal by the Labour Party at its recent Conference.

 

As a final contribution Councillor Kelcher also spoke in opposition to the motion, highlighting the fundamental importance in the electorate being able to hold their elected representatives to account.  Whilst supporting the concept of all votes having equal value, concerns were raised that certain forms of PR (such as the Party List system) may adversely impact the link between the electorate and their representatives as well as enable more extremist political parties to gain power.  In view of these concerns and on the basis that more clarity was needed in terms of the type of PR system being sought, Councillor Kelcher advised he would be opposing the motion.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak and in view of thew remaining time available, the Mayor then invited Councillor Georgiou to exercise his right of reply.  In summing up, Councillor Georgiou felt it was important to recognise the fragile state of democracy in the UK, with confidence in politics at a record low. As a result, he hoped members would join him in supporting the motion in seeking a change in the voting system to guarantee that every vote counted equally as a means of fairness, increasing participation and inspiring renewed confidence in the current political system.

 

Having thanked members for their contributions the Mayor then moved to put the motion, as set out below, to a vote which was declared LOST and not therefore 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.”

 

17.3    3^rd Motion (Labour Group) – Save our Services

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Benea to move the first motion submitted by the Labour Group.  In moving the motion Councillor Benea, began by referring to a quote made by Rishi Sunak when seeking election as the Conservative Party leader prior to becoming Prime Minister relating to changes he felt needed to be made in the way funding was being allocated to different parts of the country under the levelling up agenda.  Whilst acknowledging the need for levelling up, which had been understood by the previous Labour Government, Councillor Benea felt the approach adopted by the Conservative government had been the exact opposite in terms of the programme of austerity imposed on local authorities and public services.  As a result, Councillor Benea advised that the motion was seeking to highlight the concerns being expressed by not only the Labour Administration in Brent but also the LGA, London Council’s and a range of other local authorities of different political persuasion regarding the perilous state of local government finances and failure of the government to address the fundamental reforms identified as required in moving towards a more long term and sustainable funding solution and away from the current model of ad-hoc bidding for funding whilst also recognising the impact of the reduction in central government funding and £210m of cuts that had needed to be delivered in Brent since austerity had begun.  In commending the motion to members, Councillor Benea ended by outlining the five specific actions being sought from the government on which support was being sought as a means of saving services and which it was hoped would start to be addressed in the Chancellors upcoming Autum statement.

 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Benea for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

In support of Councillor Benea’s opening statement, Councillor Tatler also took the opportunity to highlight the serious and challenging nature of the Council’s current financial position, which it was pointed out had arisen as a result of the unprecedented pressures created by continued economic and financial uncertainty along with the rapidly increasing demand for services and reduction in government funding as a result of austerity since 2010.  Highlighting the decrease in core funding provided by the government for local government (totalling 78%) and cumulative impact of the cuts which had needed to be made as a result within Brent (totalling £210m) since 2010, Councillor Tatler urged all members to support the motion which she pointed out was seeking to secure a fully funded, long term funding solution from the government and had recognised the difficult nature of decisions needing to be taken to deliver a financially sustainable and resilient balanced budget given the ongoing uncertainty over future government funding whilst also seeking to safeguarded key services for residents.

 

In support of the concerns outlined, Councillor Knight highlighted the specific budgetary pressures being created as a result of the unprecedented increase currently being experienced in levels of homelessness and demand in relation to housing supply as well as the increase in costs for the provision of suitable Temporary Accommodation.  In referring to the £400m shortfall in funding identified by London Councils for local authorities across London, members were advised that nearly £90m of this related to pressures on Temporary Accommodation with 9 in 10 boroughs expected to overspend on their budgets during the current financial year.  Whilst Brent continued to deliver one of the highest levels of affordable new housing the increase in supply was not able to match current demand with, she pointed out, the Council having experienced a 22% increase in the number of residents presenting as homelessness when compared to last year and current economic conditions within the construction sector making it even more challenging to deliver major housing projects in a viable way.  In support of the motion, Councillor Knight felt there was a need for the government to recognise the seriousness of the financial position faced by local government and to take the necessary action to address the shortfall in funding in order to support the delivery of new homes and services relied on by some many residents.

 

Whilst supportive of the need to identify a permanent solution that would provide the long-term sustainable funding required by local government Councillor Kansagra, as a further contribution to the debate, also highlighted the extent of funding which had already been provided by the government in different forms to support the ongoing delivery of services for residents, which he felt also needed to be recognised as part of the approach towards the debate.  The comments made by Councillor Kansagra were also supported by Councillor Hirani who felt there was a need to focus on the current Administration’s control and management of the budget when considering the current financial pressures and challenges faced rather than the way funding was being allocated centrally and with concerns expressed to avoid the need for any Section 114 notice to be issued as a result.

 

In challenging the previous comments made by members of the Conservative Group, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as a final contribution to the debate) highlighted, despite their claims to the contrary, what he felt had been the government’s failure to address the need for reform of local government finance and to increase the core spending power for local government.  In contrast, he outlined what he regarded as the prudent and sustainable way in which the Council had sought to manage its budget despite the significant financial pressures and challenges highlighted with the government, he pointed out, having sought to shift the subsequent financial burden onto local resident through use of Council Tax, having consistently declined other equitable alternatives to raise funding.  Pointing out that Brent was currently one of only a small number of Council’s nationally to have received assurance regarding the completion of its Statement of Accounts for 2022-23 Councillor Butt ended by outlining the measures being taken to continue supporting and safeguarding local residents despite the approach taken by the Conservative Government towards the funding of local authorities, which he advised he was proud to support in seeking to ensure no one was left behind whilst also delivering a well-managed and balanced budget.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak and in view of the remaining time available, the Mayor then invited Councillor Benea to exercise her right of reply.  In responding and closing the debate, Councillor Benea thanked members in their support for the motion whilst also expressing concern at the approach taken by the Conservative Group in their response.  Highlighting the serious nature of the financial position faced by local government as a result of the government’s approach towards its funding, she ended by commending the Council on the measures being taken to manage Brent’s budget whilst also seeking to prioritise the protection of frontline services and support those residents most in need and on this basis hoped all members would support the motion as moved.

 

Having thanked all members for their contributions, the Mayor then put the motion, to a vote which was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“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.”

 

17.4    4^th Motion (Labour Group) – Lift the Ban

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Moeen to move the second and final motion submitted by the Labour Group.  In moving the motion Councillor Moeen, began by highlighting the collective effort being coordinated through the "Lift the Ban" coalition in advocating for the right to work for people seeking asylum in the UK who were currently prohibited from doing so whilst awaiting a decision on their asylum applications.  Highlighting the impact of the ban in restricting the ability of those affected to support not only themselves and their families but also in undermining their dignity and self-worth the approach was also seen as detrimental towards society and the economy as a whole, given it denied those same individuals the ability to contribute and share their skills, knowledge, and potential which would not only enhance integration and provide a sense of purpose but also help alleviate the associated burden on public funds.

 

In addition, Councillor Moeen advised that the motion sought to recognise how lifting the ban would align with the UK’s commitment to human rights and international obligations in terms satisfying the right to work and free choice of employment which she felt were principles to be recognised, in addition to the concept of equality, fairness, and the empowerment of all individuals regardless of their background or immigration status, in supporting a fair and inclusive society.  As such, she ended by commending the motion to all members in support of the solution being sought by the Lift the Ban" coalition in seeking to stand up to inequality and grant people seeking asylum the right to work after a maximum waiting period of six months.

 

The Mayor thanked Councillor Moeen for moving the motion before inviting other members to speak, with the following contributions received.

 

Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson opened the debate by expressing concern at the Government’s current stance towards Asylum Seekers and prolonged delay in tackling the backlog of asylum applications directly impacting on the dignity and right to work of those affected and the contribution they were able to make not only in terms of supporting themselves and their families but also in terms of their health, wellbeing and broader contribution and integration towards society.  Highlighting Brent’s proud history of embracing individuals seeking safety and recognising and valuing the diverse nature of communities who had settled within the borough, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson advised that she welcomed the motion which she hoped all members would support.

 

Echoing the comments previously made, Councillor Nerva also spoke in support of the motion highlighting the valuable contribution he felt those seeking asylum could make in areas such as the health and social care sector if they were able to contribute and share their knowledge, skills, resilience and potential rather than being denied the opportunity to work by the government.

 

As further contributions in support of the motion, Councillor Ahmadi-Moghaddam in outlining concern at what he felt to be the unacceptable way in which Asylum Seekers were being treated by the government commended the efforts being made by charities and other organisations such as the “Lift the Ban” coalition to champion the rights of those seeking refuge within the UK in order to promote integration and avoid those individuals failing into impoverishment, isolation and exploitation with the need to address the recent damaging rhetoric of individuals within the government also highlighted.  These concerns were also supported by Councillor Ethapemi, who queried the stance being taken by the government in seeking to challenge international law and longstanding commitments and obligations contained within the Human Rights Convention as a result of its Rwandan policy and lack of what he felt was any credible and compassionate alternative immigration policy.

 

As a final contribution, Councillor Kansagra advised that whilst commending the sentiment behind the motion and keen to welcome and support those genuinely seeking refuge he also felt there was a need to recognise the need for the asylum process to be properly managed and shared across the international community.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak and in view of the remaining time available within the block allocated for the motions, the Mayor then invited Councillor Moeen to exercise her right of reply who, in closing the debate, once again urged all members to support the motion and campaign by the "Lift the Ban" coalition.  Recognising the comments made during the debate she ended by calling on members to be guided by their compassion, empathy, and fairness in seeking to champion the rights of people seeking asylum, promote integration, and foster a more inclusive society as a way of securing a brighter future for all.

 

Having once again thanked all members for their contributions, the Mayor then put the motion, to a vote which was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“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.”