Agenda item

For questions to be put to members of the Cabinet by Opposition and Non-Cabinet Members in accordance with Standing Order 35.

Five advance notice questions have been received under this item, which have been attached along with the written responses provided.

Members are asked to note that this session will also include an opportunity (within the time available) for other Non-Cabinet members and the Opposition to ask questions of Cabinet Members without the need for advance notice.

Before moving on to consider the questions submitted by non-Cabinet members, the Mayor reminded Members that a total of 30 minutes had been set aside for this item, which would begin with consideration of the written questions submitted in advance of the meeting along with any supplementary questions. Once these had been dealt with, the remaining time available would then be opened up for any other non-Cabinet members to question Cabinet Members (without the need for advance notice) on matters relating to their portfolio.

The Mayor advised that five written questions had been submitted in advance of the meeting for response by the relevant Cabinet Member and the written responses circulated within the agenda were noted. The Mayor then invited supplementary questions on the responses provided:

12.1   Councillor Lesley Smith thanked Councillor Benea (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Property) for the written response regarding the Council’s recent investment in the West London Orbital rail project and support for the Bakerloo Line upgrade and extension.  In welcoming the Council’s commitment to these schemes details were also sought, as a supplementary question, on the Council’s position regarding support for the campaign to secure step free access at Queens Park Station given the significant passenger numbers using the station, including families and older members of the community.

In response, Councillor Benea in welcoming the support expressed for the Council’s ongoing commitment towards West London Orbital and the Bakerloo Line extension given the importance of the economic, social and environmental benefits associated with their delivery, also highlighted her willingness to work with the campaign to secure step free access at Queens Park station. In referencing the support and investment provide by the Council, working in collaboration with TfL, to secure step free access at Alperton Station Councillor Benea expressed hope that similar improvements could be secured at Queen Parks and ended her response by once again reiterating her support for the lobbying efforts being undertaken by the local campaign.

12.2   Councillor Long thanked Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm and Enforcement) for the written response to her question seeking an update on the provision of parking bays for dockless e-bikes across the borough, ongoing work to hold e-bike operators to account for safety and operation of the scheme and measures to promote active travel.  In referring to the management of dockless e-bikes and the promotion of cycling and sustainable travel in Brent, Councillor Long, highlighted particular concerns regarding pedestrian safety given the way in which dockless e-bikes were being unsafely left on the street and the ease with which they could be hacked.  As a supplementary question, Councillor Long therefore sought details on the measures being pursued by the Council with Lime (as the scheme operator in Brent to address the concerns highlighted, particularly in relation to the problems being created through the hacking of their dockless e-bikes and whether any requirement could be included moving forward to ensure the bikes provided include anti-hacking measures.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth acknowledged the concerns raised by Councillor Long and assured members of the ongoing engagement between the Council and Lime (as the current dockless e-bike provider within the borough) in an attempt to address the concerns relating to the issues being created by the hacking of their bikes and to ensure the necessary preventative measures were introduced moving forward.

12.3  As Councillor Moeen had submitted her apologies for absence the written response to her original question regarding the provision of free school meals and pilot breakfast clubs was noted without any follow up supplementary question being raised.

12.4   In noting the written response provided to her question regarding the equality impact assessment relating to the town twinning arrangements with Nablus Councillor Mistry felt it important to clarify the issues raised did not relate to the twinning arrangement in principle but were instead focussed on whether the Council had fulfilled its obligations regarding assessments in relation to equality, impartiality, and the impact on community cohesion.  As a supplementary question she therefore asked Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) to clarify (a) the steps being taken to mitigate the risks identified in the equality impact assessment supporting the twinning arrangement; (b) the basis of the decision made in seeking to purse a partnership arrangement which excluded many of Brent residents, including sections of the LGBT+ and Jewish community; and (c) the perceived lack of consultation with key communities and steps being taken to verify the total number of signatures included as part of the petition supporting the original twinning arrangement.  In summing up Councillor Mistry queried how a decision that had appeared to exclude many residents, divided the community, and raised serious equality concerns could be justified on the basis of creating unity and fostering community cohesion.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt began by referring to what he felt had been the comprehensive written response provided to the original question which were also felt to have covered the supplementary issues raised by Councillor Mistry.  The opportunity was, though, also taken to once again emphasise Brent's commitment to protecting and serving all residents across the borough regardless of their beliefs, faith or background.  In addressing the concerns raised in relation to the equality impact assessment he reminded members of the intention for this to be a continuous and live process designed to reflect any concerns and issues being raised and once again extended an offer to meet with anyone who had specific concerns (as he had done earlier during presentation of the petition opposing the twinning arrangements) to ensure all voices and opinions were heard.  In ending his response, Councillor Muhammed Butt once again reiterated the commitment made to continue listening to Brent residents and doing everything possible to safeguard, protect, and serve all communities across the borough.

12.5   In thanking Councillor Benea for her written response to his question regarding the definition of shared ownership as an affordable housing model and delivery of shared housing units across the borough, Councillor Lorber began by highlighting what he felt was a need to review the accuracy of the data provided on the delivery of units by ward, with specific reference to the figures relating to Alperton.  Reference was also made to issues recently highlight within a BBC report into the hidden costs and financial hardship increasingly being experienced by people who had purchased shared ownership units and, in view of the concerns, raised asked Councillor Benea, as a supplementary question, whether as a result Brent still, irrespective of the planning rules, defined “shared ownership” as an affordable housing model.

In response, Councillor Benea (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Property) felt it important to clarify that the Council was not responsible for the current definition of shared ownership as an affordable housing model which it was pointed out fell within the definition of an affordable housing product within the National Planning Policy Framework and London Plan and which Brent’s Local Plan was therefore consistent with.  Whilst aware of the concerns raised, it was pointed out that the Council’s emphasis remained on providing the maximum number of homes at social or London affordable rents of which shared ownership currently formed part of the overall picture.  In terms of the issues raise relating to accuracy of the data provided, Councillor Benea ended her response by advising she would arrange for the figures provided to be reviewed and should any issues be identified come back to update Councillor Lorber.

Having thanked members for their written questions and Cabinet Members for the responses provided to the supplementary questions, the Mayor advised that he intended to move on with the remainder of time available being used for an open question time session to the Cabinet.  Questions relating to the following issues were raised and responses provided, as set out below:

(i)     Following the Council’s recent self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing and subsequent C3 regulatory grading Councillor Jayanti Patel felt it had become clear that serious failings had occurred, particularly in relation to breaches in compliance with building safety standards and significant inaccuracies with the True Compliance system. This included 12,500 fire actions having been wrongly updated to indicate that works had been completed despite missing the required supporting evidence in addition to the council being unable to reconcile performance data on asbestos management, water safety and detectors for smoke and carbon monoxide.

Given the scale and seriousness of the issues identified he therefore asked for a clear assurance to be provided on the actions being taken to address the position and that a clear and that a transparent response would be provided, recognising this as vital in restoring public confidence in the Council’s ability to safeguard its residents and comply with its regulatory obligations.

The Mayor advised that as this question would require a response from Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (as Cabinet Member for Housing) who had submitted her apologies for absence, a written response would be arranged following the meeting.

(ii)        Councillor Chan who in highlighting the condemnation being expressed by residents and businesses he represented in Harlesden & Kensal Green towards those responsible for fly-tipping and littering and welcoming the zero tolerance approach towards enforcement prescribed within the "Don't Mess with Brent" campaign, sought assurance on the feasibility and approach being adopted in seeking to increase the number of enforcement officers currently employed along with an extension in enforcement hours.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) advised of the measures already introduced to increase the level of enforcement activity and number of officer available supported by enhanced CCTV coverage. Night patrols were also confirmed to have been introduced during summer months with the Council continuing to explore how to increase shift coverage during enhanced periods of activity.

(iii)       In taking the opportunity to welcome Councillor Knight back from maternity leave, Councillor Kennelly took the opportunity to celebrate the opening of Preston Community Library with thanks expressed to the Residents Association for their support of the campaign along with officers for their hard work in delivery of the project.  Highlighting the significant achievement in delivery of the scheme, Councillor Kennelly asked if this was recognised as evidence of the Council's effective collaboration with the Voluntary & Community Sector and what could be achieved through effective support of the sector.

In response, Councillor Knight (as Cabinet Member for Customer Experience, Resident Support and Culture) thanked Councillor Kennelly and colleagues for the warm welcome back and agreed that delivery of the scheme highlighted the importance of the strong relationship between the Council and Voluntary & Community Sector as well as the library service and volunteers involved in running community libraries, across the borough who were recognised as essential in ensuring local needs continued to be met.

(iv)      In referring to the Conservative Group alternative budget proposals which had been moved at the Budget Setting Council meeting in February 2025, Councillor Mistry sought further details on the progress being made in addressing concerns relating to the collection of Council Tax & Business Rate arrears as well as benefit overpayments.  Citing a recent press article highlighting Brent’s performance in relation to Council Tax collection, the recovery of arrears and debt collection, details were sought on the action being taken by the Council to address the concerns outlined in relation to performance and recovery of the level of arrears identified.

In response, Councillor Milli Patel (as Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) assured members that the whilst the approach towards debt recovery was guided by the Council’s ethical debt policy and aimed to support those residents genuinely experiencing financial hardship, the Council also remained focussed in taking robust action against those who had made a conscious decision not to pay.

(v)        Councillor Johnson in noting the increase in pupils awaiting an EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan) assessment and pressures being faced by school leadership teams across the borough sought details on the support being provided to schools in Brent in relation to the offer of Additional Resource Provision designed to meet the increasingly complex needs identified.

In response, Councillor Grahl (as Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Schools) felt it important to begin by outlining the Council’s improved performance in processing EHCPs within required timescales with current performance having increased to 70%.  Highlighting the Council’s commitment to providing children with opportunities to learn in mainstream settings wherever possible, the importance of Additional Resource Provision was recognised with 69% of SEND children in Brent attending mainstream schools, and Brent’s % aligning with the national average.  Whilst providing investment to deliver a new SEN school in the borough other support measures being provided within mainstream schools included speech and language therapy, classroom conversions for neurodiverse children, and modifications for hearing-impaired children.  Councill Grahl also took the opportunity to praise the response being provided by individual schools to the challenges and pressures identified and to remind members of the outcome from a recent Ofsted inspection which had recognised provision within Brent as ensuring SEND children received appropriate levels of support when required. Whilst acknowledging the pressures being created by the continuing increase in EHCP demand, Councillor Grahl ended by commending the progress being made in Brent in seeking to address the challenges identified to ensure every child had the best start in life.

(vi)      In expressing concern at the nature of recent opposition to the decision made to approve the twinning arrangement between the Council and Nablus, Councillor Afzal sought details on the Council’s position regarding the tactics which he felt had been deployed in an attempt to derail and delay the twinning process, including what he claimed to be the spreading of fear and misinformation regarding the governance arrangements in Nablus and sought reassurance that Brent remained committed to the twinning arrangement and ensuring the views of those communities in support of the process were also recognised and heard.  Referring to the petition presented earlier in the meeting opposing the twinning arrangements, he felt this contained inaccurate information about the political affiliations of Nablus's governing authority and that the engagement with Nablus residents would endanger Brent residents with concerns also raised, as a further example, that the petition opposing the arrangements had included the names of many councillors from a Muslim background without their consent.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) felt it important to recognise the stance taken by the Council in seeking to stand against division and any form of racism with an assurance provided of the Council’s ongoing commitment to stand united against all forms of hatred and division in order to maintain Brent as one of the best examples of unity across London.

Regarding the concerns expressed in relation to the petition opposing the twinning arrangement with Nablus, confirmation was provided that officers had investigated the issues raised and identified some anomalies related to signatures having been added without apparent consent.  These individuals had been contacted to verify whether they had submitted their names, and unverified names had subsequently been removed as signatories from the petition.  This had prompted the Council to review the current verification system with proposals to review and implement a more secure and robust e-petition system moving forward.  In ending his response, Councillor Muhammed Butt felt it was essential for everyone to work together to ensure that no individual seeking to divide the community be allowed to succeed, regardless of their background or origin.

(vii)     Supporting the concerns previously raised regarding the operation of the dockless e-bike scheme by Lime across the borough, Councillor Lorber sought details on the measures being taken to address the various issues highlighted and when it would be made clear to Lime that the operation of their scheme was not working as intended prior to consideration being given to their removal.  Whilst recognising some of the issues arising from irresponsible use it was felt these were exacerbated by the ease with which the bikes could be hacked and lack of dedicated parking bays with queries raised as to why the system of dockless bikes had been accepted when compared to other more successful schemes operating a docking system which were felt to encourage more responsible behaviour.

In response, Councillor Krupa Sheth (as Cabinet Member for Public Realm & Enforcement) advised that the issues raised had been recognised and raised with Lime in relation to their future operation across the borough.  As part of the measures being introduced in response, parking bays were being introduced across the borough to encourage more responsible behaviour.  Whilst keen to support and recognise the benefits in encouraging more active modes of travel she advised the Council remained committed to tackling the concerns highlighted with Lime in order to hold them to account for operation and management of the scheme.  As part of this process reference was made to the recent public Forum held with Lime and commitment to hold further meetings, which it was hoped Councillor Lorber would seek to engage with moving forward.

(viii)    Referring to concerns previously raised at the Annual Council meeting, Councillor Kansagra once again took the opportunity to query the current arrangements for the chairing of the Council’s Scrutiny Committee’s given the impact which he felt the removal of the vice-chair roles from the Opposition Groups had had in undermining the independence and democratic accountability of the scrutiny function.  Highlight a request made for these arrangements, along with the current level of Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) payable to members in certain roles (including those serving on Planning Committee) to be reviewed by the Constitutional Working Group (CWG) details were sought on any progress made.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) referred to the response he had provided at the same meeting regarding the need to recognise the democratic mandate of the current Administration, which he felt also covered member’s participation in scrutiny and the wider democratic process highlighting the opportunities which were already available for members of the Opposition to fully participate and engage in the way scrutiny was being delivered.  In response to the concerns identified in relation to SRAs he reminded members the current Members Allowance Scheme had been designed to ensure allowances reamined in line with recommended percentage bands whilst also reflecting the scope and workload undertaken by members in their various roles.  In confirming that he would have no objection to a further review of allowances being undertaken by CWG it was, however, pointed out this had the potential for movement in either direction.

(ix)      In response to a previous question raised by Councillor Afzal in relation to the petition which had been presented earlier in the meeting regarding opposition to the Council’s twinning arrangement with Nablus, Councillor Maurice felt it important to clarify that the concerns highlighted regarding signatories to the petition were not the fault of the petitioners and instead exposed a flaw in the system hosting the online petition.  Acknowledging the Council’s actions to address the issue and role of the petitioners in also highlighting the discrepancies identified as soon as they had been identified, which he felt may have represented a deliberate act to undermine the petition, he welcomed the commitment made to reviewing security of the current e-petition system.  From his perspective, the petitioners had acted fairly, honestly, and openly when seeking support for the petition opposing the twinning arrangements which he felt had been a more open process than that undertaken by the original petition in support of the twinning arrangement and in ending sought assurance that the Council would not only address the issues highlighted in terms of the petition system but had also recognised that those petitioners opposed to the arrangement had acted honestly and fairly throughout the process.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) thanked Councillor Marice for his contribution, acknowledging the issues highlighted in relation to the petitions system given their potential to undermine the process.  As a result, he confirmed that officers were reviewing future procedures in order to identify a more robust system that could be used to prevent similar issues in the future with the aim of restoring confidence and trust in the process.

(x)        Given the remaining time available the Mayor advised that he would accept one further question with Councillor Mistry taking the opportunity to highlight concerns regarding the potential for the twinning arrangement with Nablus to create division and tension between local communities within the borough.  Given the repeated commitment made to protecting and serving all residents across the borough regardless of their beliefs, faith or background, an assurance was sought that in order to reflect this approach the need to ensure full and extensive consultation was undertaken on the current and all future twinning arrangements had been recognised.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) ended the session by thanking Councillor Mistry for her comments and once again assuring members and the local community that the forthcoming twinning of Brent with Nablus was not about endorsing any religious belief or political ideology and that any future twinning arrangements would be undertaken on the basis of the updated Protocol adopted.

At this stage in proceedings, the Mayor advised that the time available for the open question session had expired. He therefore thanked all members for their contributions and advised that the meeting would move on to the next item.

Prior to moving on the Mayor took a short comfort break, with the Deputy Mayor taking over as Chair during his absence.