Agenda item

Following the change in procedure for dealing with Motions agreed as part of the changes to the Constitution at the Annual Council Meeting in May 2024, the debate on motions submitted to Full Council, in accordance with Standing Order 30(k) and 41 will now be undertaken at this stage of the meeting.

 

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 13 September 2024)

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 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 he advised that the remaining time available would be rolled forward for consideration of the remaining motions.

 

10.1    1^st Motion (Conservative Group) – Council’s participation in the Brent River Catchment Area

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Hirani to move the first motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Conservative Group.  Councillor Hirani began by referring to several documents dating back a number of years documenting the management of flood risks impacting on a range of locations across Brent, with the Council’s Flood Risk Management Strategy making a clear case for the need to prioritise flood alleviation measures.  Highlighting similar documents and strategies developed by both the London Boroughs of Harrow and Barnet, Councillor Hirani outlined how this had led to all three boroughs to come together and create the Brent River Catchment Partnership to support the joint development of schemes designed to alleviate and protect against potential flood risks, recognising benefits given the interconnectivity of waterways across all three boroughs.  With this as background, she advised the motion was seeking to clarify why it appeared the decision had been taken within Brent to withdraw from the Partnership given the nature of works that continued to be developed in Harrow and Barnet that would directly benefit the residents of Brent and loss of access to associated funding for schemes.

 

Highlighting reference made within the motion to the types of specific schemes being developed, including flood attenuation works in Byron Recreation ground in Harrow designed to alleviate flooding risks in Wealdstone Brook and surrounding streams, river works in Chandos Park involving the restructuring of the Edgware Brook that fed into the River Brent alongside work in partnership with Thames 21 to undertake river restoration work in Watling Park to address flood alleviation in the Edgware/Burnt Oak area, Councillor Hirani criticised what she felt to be Brent’s distancing from these projects not only terms of flood alleviation measures but also in contributing towards the Council’s climate ambitions and improved biodiversity.  As a result, Councillor Hirani ended by advising that the motion was not only seeking an explanation for the approach adopted within Brent but also calling for the Council to re-engage with the Partnership for the benefit of all those impacted by potential flood risks across the borough.

 

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

 

In responding to the motion, Councillor Krupa Sheth began by querying the basis on which the motion had been presented given that officers had confirmed Brent had not withdrawn from the Partnership agreement and, infact, was continuing to work with both Barnet and Harrow in relation to the delivery of flood alleviation schemes. In highlighting the Council’s ongoing commitment to creating a cleaner and greener future, Councillor Krupa Sheth assured members that the delivery and maintenance of cleaner waterways remained an integral part of this approach with, as an example, the Council having been allocated £80k of Levy Funding working with the Environment Agency to deliver a flood alleviation scheme in Wealdstone Brook on which consultants were currently engaged in preparing a design.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak the Mayor then invited Councillor Hirani to exercise her right of reply.  In summing up, Councillor Hirani felt that the response provided was not accurate with the evidence clear, she felt, that Brent had pulled out of the partnership and as a result missed out on access to up to £6m worth of funding.  As such she commended her motion to members for support.

 

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

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to reject the following motion:

 

“Council’s participation in the Brent River Catchment Area

 

In recognising the impact of Brent having withdrawn from the 3 Borough agreement to help improve the Brent River Catchment Area, this Council welcomes:

 

·            The river restoration works being jointly undertaken by Harrow and Barnet Councils to improve the waterways in their boroughs which will not only help with flood alleviation but also contribute to improving biodiversity.

 

·            The proposed flood attenuation works in Byron Recreation ground in Harrow which will hold back up to 20,000 litres of potential flood water from the Wealdstone Brook and surrounding streams and welcomes the river works in Chandos Park involving the restructuring of the Edgware Brook which runs into the River Brent. Further, we applaud the decision of Barnet Council in partnership with Thames 21 to undertake river restoration work in Watling Park to help with flood alleviation in the Edgware/Burnt Oak area.

 

·            All of the proposed river project works in Harrow and Barnet which will directly benefit the residents of Brent. Council since these flood alleviation projects will help reduce the likelihood of flooding from the River Brent and its tributaries in Brent.

 

Whilst welcoming the volunteer work of Thames 21, CURB (Clean up the River Brent) and LagerCan in helping to keep our waterways clear of illegally dumped fly-tipped waste, this Council regrets the termination of Brent’s partnership with Harrow and Barnet Council’s under the River Brent Catchment Area Partnership.

 

This Council therefore resolves:

 

That the Cabinet Member for Environment and Enforcement commence negotiations seeking the Council’s return to the River Brent Catchment Area Partnership before the end of 2024.”

 

10.2    2^nd Motion (Liberal Democrats Group) – Stop the betrayal of Brent’s elderly residents

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Georgiou to move the second motion, which had been submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats Group.  As context for the motion, Councillor Georgiou began by highlighting the recent national election campaign fought by all political parties including Labour’s focus on change and in seeking to address the previous Conservatives Government’s mismanagement of the economy.  Despite no reference made during the election campaign, he highlighted that the first decision made by the newly elected Labour Government had been to cut the £300 Winter Fuel Allowance for thousands of pensioners and elderly residents impacting (by his Groups calculation) over 20,000 residents in Brent.  Given the direct attack this was felt to represent on the ability of elderly people to keep their homes warm, Councillor Georgiou highlighted that the motion called on the Labour Administration to ensure the Government was aware of the unfair and unjust nature of the cut and concern at the targeting of elderly members of society as a means in seeking to fill the black hole in public finances left by the previous Conservative Government and to lobby for their reversal in support of elderly residents across Brent.

 

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

 

In opening the debate Councillor Jayanti Patel advised that whilst in agreement with the general principle of the motion, the Conservative Group rejected the assertion that the current macroeconomic situation had been due to mismanagement of the economy by the previous Conservative Government with members also reminded of the Liberal Democrats record during their time as part of the coalition government.

 

In views of a reference made to his age during the previous contribution, Councillor Georgiou sought to raise a Point of Order seeking to challenge the comment on the basis of its relevance to the debate with the Mayor deciding to move on and continue the debate without further comment.

 

Following on, Councillor Grahl felt it was important to recognise the context and importance of the wider initial actions undertaken by the new Labour Government which had included reaching agreement on pay increases for key public sector workers including teachers and doctors designed to address the previous stance of the Conservative Government and ensure fair pay across key areas of the public sector.

 

As a further contribution, Councillor Lorber (speaking in support of the motion) also took the opportunity to criticise the approach taken by the new Labour Government highlighting that neither the Prime Minister or Chancellor had mentioned plans to cut the Winter Fuel Allowance as part of their recent election campaign and now appeared to be betraying  elderly residents across Brent and the rest of the country.  In outlining an interest in the issue, as someone likely to benefit from any reversal in the policy, he ended by outlining what he felt was a need for honesty, decency and fairness in dealing with the challenges left by the previous Conservative Government as opposed to any further pursuit of austerity.

 

As a final contribution to the debate, Councillor Miller felt that the approach adopted by the new Labour Government had been designed to reflect the dire financial position inherited from the previous Conservative Government with means testing of a universal benefit, especially one involving energy payments, making sense and ensuring those most in need continued to receive support.  In terms of the comments made in relation to manifesto pledges he ended by also reminding members of the Liberal Democrats record and approach taken in this respect as part of the last coalition government.

 

As there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak the Mayor then invited Councillor Georgiou to exercise his right of reply.  In summing up, Councillor Georgiou felt it deeply hypocritical that the Labour Party had spent the last decade criticising the Conservative Government for their stance in relation to austerity but now appeared to be continuing the same policy with elderly residents as their first target and felt this should be an issue considered by all members when deciding whether to support the motion.

 

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

 

It was therefore RESOLVED to reject the following motion:

 

“Stop the betrayal of Brent’s elderly residents

 

The new Labour Government has launched an attack on the ability of elderly people to keep their homes warm over this and future winters, at a time when gas and electricity prices are rising yet again.

 

Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor made no mention of scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance during the recent election campaign and are now betraying thousands of Brent residents who voted for them in good faith.

 

The current macroeconomic situation is dire, after years of Tory mismanagement and incompetence, however, it is cruel to be targeting elderly members of society to fill the black hole in our public finances - of which all parties were warned about prior to the election.

 

Last week, 100% of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament voted to reject the government’s cruel plans, because elderly residents should not be the first target of Labour’s austerity.

 

Once again it is now down to local authorities to pick up the mess created by the Labour Government and assist the most vulnerable residents as best we can.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

 

·            Write to the Prime Minister and Chancellor to make them aware of the number of Brent residents who will lose out as a result of their actions.

 

·            Lobby the Labour Government to provide additional funding for local Councils and Citizens’ Advice Bureaus to carry out targeted outreach work to help elderly residents claim what they are entitled to.

 

·            Lobby the Labour Government to change the current system so Pension Credit is paid automatically to eligible residents, without the need to apply.

 

·            Work with the Department of Works and Pensions to identify residents in receipt of Universal Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support, for a targeted campaign to ensure that all those entitled to receive help in claiming Pension Credit get it, so they can heat their homes this winter.”

 

10.3    3^rd Motion (Labour Group) – Cracking down on gambling harms

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Kelcher to move the first motion submitted by the Labour Group.  In moving the motion, Councillor Kelcher began by highlighting his ward (Harlesden & Kensal Green) as one of the areas most blighted by the location of adult gaming centres and gambling premises across the borough leading to one national newspaper having referred to the area as the “Las Vegas of London”.  Highlighting how the clustering of gambling premises had become a significant issue in Brent, Councillor Kelcher felt it important to outline the significant and harmful social, economic, and public health impacts of gambling with residents having long been campaigning to prevent the opening of further premises and for more powers to be made available for local authorities to control their operation.  Referring to numerous studies which had highlighted links between gambling and poor physical and mental health concern was also expressed at the addictive nature of the different types of gambling machines available and harm identified as a result with the premises often being placed in areas of high deprivation with the most vulnerable residents.  As an example, it was pointed out that approximately a quarter of residents in the Harlesden and Kensal Green ward were living at or below the poverty threshold with the placement of six gambling premises along a 600 metre stretch of the Hight Street in Harlesden felt to represent an increasingly insidious epidemic.  Expressing concern at the limited powers currently available for local authorities to restrict the opening of gambling premises and their clustering in specific areas along with the resources available to operators seeking to appeal against any attempts to oppose or challenge new applications Councillor Kelcher ended by outlining the focus within the motion in seeking the necessary powers for local authorities to be able to reject premise license applications if they were felt to place the Statement of Gambling Principles at risk and for enhanced regulation of the gambling sector to protect vulnerable residents, which he hoped all members would join him in supporting on a cross party basis.

 

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

 

Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor Lorber opened the debate by highlighting one of the initial actions he had undertaken as previous Leader of the Council in seeking to oppose and reverse proposals for the development of a Las Vegas style casino in Wembley Park.  In highlighting the need for reform of the current Gambling Act he felt it important to recognise the impact of decisions made by the previous Labour Government (under Tony Blair’s leadership) in terms of deregulation of the gambling sector, which he hoped the new Labour Government would seek to reverse in order to protect vulnerable residents and recognise the social, economic, and public health harm being caused by gambling.

 

Also speaking to highlight the Conservative Group’s support for the motion, Councillor Maurice outlined the role also played by the Conservative Group in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in opposing the Wembley Park casino and also expressing concerns at the social and economic harm caused by gambling.  In supporting the calls for a ban on gambling advertising he advised he would also be supportive of the introduction of a windfall tax on gambling companies Councillor Maurice was also keen to recognise the social and public health impact of gambling and as such advised he would be supporting the motion.

 

Also speaking in support of the motion, Councillor Kupa Sheth took the opportunity to thank Councillor Kelcher (supported by Councillor Chan) for moving the motion on such an important subject recognising the level of concerns being raised by local communities on the clustering of gambling premises within the borough and their impact.  Highlighting the struggle faced by local authorities under the permissive 'Aim to Permit' she outlined the restrictions this had placed on Council’s in seeking to limit the number of betting shops, gaming centres, and bingo halls in any one area despite significant levels of local community opposition to them.  In noting that the areas in which these clusters of gambling premises were located tended to experience higher levels of deprivation, poor public health and community safety issues the need to protect those most at risk and be able to reflect local concerns and opposition to them was strongly supported, which would include the necessary power to be able to reject premise licence applications, where felt necessary as part of wider reform of the Gambling Act.  As such it was hoped that all members would support the motion and work to progress discussions with the new Labour Government in seeking ways to better protect residents from the harm caused by gambling.

 

In recognising and supporting the concerns highlighted within the motion, Councillor Choudry also highlighted the impact in relation to the additional clustering of gambling premises across the Willesden Green area with the balance of power needing to be adjusted in favour of being able to better regulate and restrict their operation in line with local Statements of Gambling Principles.  As such he also supported the need for urgent reform of the current Gambling legislation especially in relation to the “Aim to Permit” and in support of ensuring the protection of residents and local communities.

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Chan highlighted the significant effort made to oppose the proliferation of gambling premises in Harlesden and Kensal Green and frustration at the difficulties created as a result of current legislation in seeking to prevent new premises from being able to open.  In referring to the existing clusters of gambling premises as engines of social and economic misery he also expressed concern at their social and public health impact and hoped that on this basis all members would support the motion.

 

As a final contribution, in view of the remaining time available for debate, Councillor Chappell supported a focus on the concerns highlighted as a significant public health issue and need to address the current permissive approach within legislation under the “Aim to Permit”, also outlining the impact along Willesden High Road which residents felt powerless to address.  Recognising the extensive level of research demonstrating the social and public health harm caused by gambling to families and across local communities he supported the need to provide local authorities with the power to be able say no to these types of establishments.

 

As the time limit for debate had been reached and there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak the Mayor then invited Councillor Kelcher to exercise his right of reply.  In summing up, Councillor Kelcher thanked who those who had contributed to the debate for their support and welcomed the consensus expressed in seeking to treat the concerns highlighted as a social and public health crisis and for reform of the current Gambling legislation and associated planning regulations to prevent further proliferation and clustering of gambling premises and centres in areas where they created the most harm.

 

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

 

It was therefore unanimously RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“Cracking down on gambling harms

 

This Council notes:

 

·            The clustering of gambling premises and Licensed Betting Operators (LBOs) has become a significant issue across all councils, including Brent.

 

·            In Harlesden, on a 600 meter stretch, six gambling premises exist. Residents have long been campaigning to prevent the opening of further premises.

 

·            The social, economic, and public health impacts of gambling are well documented. Numerous studies have highlighted links between gambling and suicidality, depression, anxiety, and poor physical health.

 

·            Online gambling harms are an increasingly insidious epidemic. Research has found 60% of the profits from online gambling come from the 5% of consumers experiencing harm, with half of more than £6 billion online gambler losses attributable to slots.

 

This Council further notes:

 

·            While the previous government’s Gambling Act Review white paper sought to amend our gambling laws so they are fit for a digital age, they did not afford sufficient Parliamentary time to formalise the legislation while in office.

 

·            Various delays to the review – namely five different ministers overseeing the legislation since 2020 – has meant outdated and insufficient laws failing to protect vulnerable gamblers.

 

·            The statutory ‘Aim to Permit’ policy restricts local authority powers required to prevent the opening of LBOs and the subsequent clustering of premises.

 

This Council supports the following reforms:

 

·            The introduction of limits to stakes, prizes and speed of play online, as already exists on venue-based machines. Online slots should be capped at £2 a spin, in line with Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

 

·            A standardised threshold at which enhanced affordability checks take place for all licensed online gambling operators - the Social Market Foundation’s suggests these checks should take place when a person’s losses exceed £100 within a month.

 

·            The introduction of a statutory levy on gambling operators for research, education and treatment that should be administered through an independent public body. This levy should initially be set at 1% of gross revenue but should be increased in line with need, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

 

·            An end to gambling advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. Children should not be exposed to gambling advertising at all, given the degree of harm which arises from online gambling.

 

·            The creation of a dedicated Gambling Ombudsman to ensure consumers who have been treated unfairly by gambling operators are able to access a means for redress.

 

·            Reform to the statutory ‘Aim to Permit’, so local authorities have the power to reject premise license applications if the Statement of Gambling Principles were put at risk.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1)       Write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, to inform them of our priorities for reform and ask the government to consider gambling a public health issue, as well as wider reform of the Gambling Act.

 

(2)       Support implementation ofa revised Statement of Gambling Principles (pending public consultation).  Tightening our policy will ensure applicants and operators whose premises are used for gambling have taken stringent steps to prevent gambling becoming a source of crime and disorder and protect people from gambling related harm.”

 

10.4  4^th Motion (Labour Group) – End the 21-hour rule for young adult carers

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Long to move the second and final motion submitted by the Labour Group.  In moving the motion Councillor Long, began by outlining what were felt to be the unfair restrictions on young carers being able to claim Carer’s Allowance if they studied for more than 21 hours per week which it was highlighted often meant the opportunities to pursue further learning and work were limited.  Remembering the legacy created by the late former Councillor Lesley Jones in relation to the focus and support on the role of young carers, tribute was paid to the number of young adult carers providing unpaid care on a regular basis across Brent.  Whilst recognising the commitment within the new Brent Carers Strategy to support all carers, including young adult carers, and to establish the necessary support within schools the motion sought to highlight the difficulties and unfairness created by the current rules restricting young carers in being able to claim Carer’s Allowance as a result of them studying given the harm and risk in limiting their chances to progress to higher education and resulting longer term impact on their employment prospects and financial independence.  Recognising the estimated level of unpaid care being provided and wider impacts identified, Councillor Long advised that the motion was seeking support in calling on the new Government to consider exempting young adult carers from the 21-hour rule along with a more ambitious programme for social care reform which she hoped all members would join her in supporting.

 

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

 

In opening the debate, Councillor Mistry highlighted her support for the motion acknowledging the heartbreaking situation young carers faced, potentially missing out on educational and employment opportunities and supporting the need for unpaid carers to be recognised and prioritised by the Council and new Government in their approach towards addressing social care provision. The new government had not given details on its national care service and so Councillor Mistry believed it was vital that Brent continued to support young careers within the borough given the invaluable role they played and increasing level of financial challenges faced including rising energy bills and the cost-of-living.  In ending, Councillor Mistry advised she was pleased to see reference to the estimated costs involved in removing the restrictions in provision of Carer’s Allowance to all eligible young carers in further education and highlighted the contrast with the costs involved in providing recent pay awards to the rail unions with the provision of financial security and well-earned support to all young carers she felt to represent more of a deserving priority.

 

Councillor Nerva also thanked Councillor Long for moving the motion recognising the unfairness in the current rules preventing young carers (aged 16 - 24) being able to claim Carer’s Allowance if they studied for more than 21 hours per week and impact this had not only in relation to their chances in terms of educational attainment and longer term employment prospects and financial independence but also to their health and well-being, with many of those currently impacted typically from low income households and often living in poverty.  In commending the need to recognise the needs of young careers as a priority within Brents Carers Strategy and six key commitments identified in response relating to access to information, partnership working, supporting wellbeing, carer awareness, reaching into communities and supporting young carers at the start of their journey it was felt these along with support of the motion would help to improve the lives of carers and young carers with the change being sought long overdue.

 

Also speaking in support of the motion, Councillor Moeen was keen to recognise the focus and support that young carers deserved which she felt would lead to a more inclusive and supportive society.

 

As a final contribution to the debate (in view of the time remaining) Councillor Georgiou also outlined his support for the motion, highlighting his personal experience as a carer for a family member.  As a result, he empathised with the experiences faced by young carers and was keen to ensure everything possible was done to ensure those providing care (especially when unpaid) were provided with all necessary support, thanking Councillor Long for bring the motion to Full Council.

 

As the time limit for debate had been reached and there were no other members who had indicated they wished to speak the Mayor then invited Councillor Long to exercise her right of reply.  In summing up, Councillor Long thanked members for the cross-party support expressed in support of the motion taking the opportunity, at the same time, to highlight the opportunities available to the previous Conservative Government to have amended the restrictions and hoped that the support being provided for young carers was also an issue that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee would continue to keep under review going forward.

 

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

 

It was therefore unanimously RESOLVED to approve the following motion:

 

“End the 21-hour rule for young adult carers

 

This Council notes:

 

Young adult carers aged 16-24 provide unpaid care to someone, usually a family member, on a regular basis. The 2021 Census identified 272,731 young adult carers in England and Wales – at least 171 of whom live in Brent. Around 37,000 young people provide over 50 hours of care each week. That’s over £3.5bn of unpaid care per year.

 

Young adult carers often give up their childhoods to care for others. Yet, through no fault of their own, they consistently miss out on opportunities in learning and work (29)

 

·            Young carers have significantly lower educational attainment at GCSE, the equivalent to nine grades lower overall than their peers.

·            24% of young carers in school say they cannot afford to go to college or university.

·            Young carers are three times as likely to be NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training).

·            Young carers are four times more likely to drop out of college and university than non-carers.

·            Young carers are 38% less likely to gain a degree qualification than non-carers. This is magnified for those providing high levels of care, with those caring for 35+ hours per week 86% less likely to gain a degree.

 

This Council further notes:

 

Current rules mean young carers cannot claim Carer’s Allowance if they study for more than 21 hours per week. This limits their ability to study ‘gold standard’ qualifications, like A-levels and T-levels, risks limiting their chances to progress to higher education; and could harm their long-term employment prospects and financial independence.

 

No young adult carer should miss out on learning because they care for their families. The Scottish Government has recently announced that this change will be implemented from 2024. Urgent action should be taken to ensure that young adult carers in England and Wales are not left behind.

 

The Learning and Work Institute estimates that the cost of providing Carer’s Allowance to all eligible young carers in further education would be £54m per year. To extend this to all young carers, studying at any level, would be £85m per year.

 

Therefore this Council resolves:

 

(1)       To write to the Secretary of State, calling on the Government to exempt young adult carers from the 21-hour rule; to ensure that young carers’ educational outcomes are being regularly reviewed alongside other vulnerable groups; and to ask that ambitious social care reform becomes a priority from day one.

 

(2)       To support the Carer’s Trust and the Learning and Work Institute in their provision for young carers across the board, regardless of employment or education status.

 

(3)       To continue supporting the crucial work of Brent Carers Centre, who deliver a holistic range of support services to address the social, emotional and financial issues that carers experience; our Early Help service; and the Brent Gateway Services, who offer guidance on benefit eligibility to our carers.

 

(4)       To support a holistic place-based approach to healthcare and social care, where integrated services will improve the care patients receive and will be rooted in communities.”